Hi everyone,
following up Timur's patch on QE microcode:
http://marc.info/?l=u-bootm=132197537730440w=2
I was wondering, would it make any sense to *embed* QE's firmware within
u-boot image itself?
After all, it should be some ~64KB worth of data, right?
Not quite sure whether this has ever
Dear Gerlando Falauto,
In message 505ae6c3.5080...@keymile.com you wrote:
following up Timur's patch on QE microcode:
http://marc.info/?l=u-bootm=132197537730440w=2
I was wondering, would it make any sense to *embed* QE's firmware within
u-boot image itself?
It's a matter of
Gerlando Falauto wrote:
Hi everyone,
following up Timur's patch on QE microcode:
http://marc.info/?l=u-bootm=132197537730440w=2
I was wondering, would it make any sense to *embed* QE's firmware within
u-boot image itself?
There are three problems:
1) A lot of U-Boot images are
On 09/20/2012 10:22:21 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
Gerlando Falauto wrote:
Hi everyone,
following up Timur's patch on QE microcode:
http://marc.info/?l=u-bootm=132197537730440w=2
I was wondering, would it make any sense to *embed* QE's firmware
within
u-boot image itself?
There are three
Scott Wood wrote:
The 512K limit is arbitrary and can be changed. It exists just to
provide a stable start address on something that grows from the end of
flash.
True, but we haven't actually done changed it. Instead of allowing for a
larger u-boot.bin, we have ALWAYS disabled features
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote:
Scott Wood wrote:
The 512K limit is arbitrary and can be changed. It exists just to
provide a stable start address on something that grows from the end of
flash.
True, but we haven't actually done changed it. Instead of
6 matches
Mail list logo
