Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
However a general rework of ARM timer code is in order so that all SoCs
and CPUs share the same set of gd variables with the same names and the
same logic; and when we get that, this code shall move along.
About this rework, as the saying goes... Patches Welcome ©. :)
Dear seedshope,
On 22 January 2011 00:34, seedshope bocui...@gmail.com wrote:
Since SDRAM init function have already change, So the SDRAM
initial function must be change.
Signed-off-by: seedshope bocui...@gmail.com
---
board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c | 10 +-
1 files changed,
Hi seedshope,
seedshope bocui107 at gmail.com writes:
-int dram_init(void)
+void dram_init_banksize(void)
{
+ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
This declaration should be done on file scope, not in a function.
+
gd-bd-bi_dram[0].start = PHYS_SDRAM_1;
gd-bd-bi_dram[0].size =
Am 22.01.2011 08:46, schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
Le 22/01/2011 06:39, Alexander Holler a écrit :
Hello,
Am 21.01.2011 09:56, schrieb Heiko Schocher:
-static ulong timestamp;
-static ulong lastdec;
+DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
+
+#define timestamp gd-tbl
+#define lastdec gd-lastinc
I'm the
миссис Azeeza Basara, родом из Катара. Мой муж покойный д-р Омар Джалал Basara.
Он работе посольства Катара в Судане и Марокко в течение двенадцати лет. И ушел
в отставку в нефтяной торговый до его смерти. Я решил не получить себе участие
в любой брак после его смерти или получить ребенка вне
Hi,
On 22/01/2011 08:39, Reinhard Meyer wrote:
I am not aware of any AT91SAM9xxx systems right now that uses low-level init,
it
would only make sense for those that boot directly from NOR, without
AT91BOOTSTRAP involved.
cpu9260 (at91sam9260 / 9g20 based) is using low-level init as it boots
Hi All,
I am starting this thread to revive and, hopefully, come to a general
agreement on how timers should be implemented and used in the ARM
architecture, and get rid of current quick fixes. Let us start with
Reinhard's proposal:
There were several suggestions about that in the past
Dear Eric Bénard wrote:
Hi,
On 22/01/2011 08:39, Reinhard Meyer wrote:
I am not aware of any
ADD: working
AT91SAM9xxx systems right now that uses low-level init, it
would only make sense for those that boot directly from NOR, without
AT91BOOTSTRAP involved.
cpu9260 (at91sam9260 / 9g20
Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
Hi All,
I am starting this thread to revive and, hopefully, come to a general
agreement on how timers should be implemented and used in the ARM
architecture, and get rid of current quick fixes. Let us start with
Reinhard's proposal:
There were several suggestions about
Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
this is not an ARM local issue.
The timeouts are used in generic drivers all around u-boot.
Have a grep for get_timer, reset_timer...
The most ugly use is with reset_timer involved, where the internal
pseudo-tick is reset to zero, so all calls to get_timer are
relative to
Le 22/01/2011 11:42, Reinhard Meyer a écrit :
Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
Hi All,
I am starting this thread to revive and, hopefully, come to a general
agreement on how timers should be implemented and used in the ARM
architecture, and get rid of current quick fixes. Let us start with
Reinhard's
Hi Reinhard,
Le 22/01/2011 12:00, Reinhard Meyer a écrit :
Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
this is not an ARM local issue.
Well, there *is* an ARM specific side of it (use of gd variables during
relocation), and that is what prompted me to start the RFC, but
generalization to U-boot is welcome if it
Hello,
because I've recently seen some other places where volatile is used to
access registers without using read?() or write?() and many people seem
to start using 4.5.1, I want to post this warning using a descriptive
subject.
The keyword volatile might not have any effect when reading when
Dear Alexander Holler,
In message 4d3ad19b.6030...@ahsoftware.de you wrote:
because I've recently seen some other places where volatile is used to
access registers without using read?() or write?() and many people seem
to start using 4.5.1, I want to post this warning using a descriptive
I'm trying to get u-boot version 1.3.4 working a custom MPC8548 based
board (version 1.1.4 currently works fine on this board so the hardware
is known to be good). I'm encountering the following problem during the
early stages of the u-boot initialization and any insights as to what
the
Dear davis mcpherson,
In message 4d3b0525.4080...@gmail.com you wrote:
I'm trying to get u-boot version 1.3.4 working a custom MPC8548 based
board (version 1.1.4 currently works fine on this board so the hardware
is known to be good). I'm encountering the following problem during the
On 22.01.2011 13:46, Alexander Holler wrote:
A patch for write?() and read?() is currently in the
u-boot-arm-repository (but not in the master and not in 2010.12):
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-January/084885.html
What's about pulling it sooner than later into master, then?
And
Hi Dirk,
Le 22/01/2011 18:40, Dirk Behme a écrit :
On 22.01.2011 13:46, Alexander Holler wrote:
A patch for write?() and read?() is currently in the
u-boot-arm-repository (but not in the master and not in 2010.12):
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-January/084885.html
What's about
Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
In message 4d3aaf63.1030...@free.fr you wrote:
Agreed for unnecessary mult-div, but 64-bit we would not avoid, and
should not IMO, when the HW has it.
When attempting to come up with true generic code, we should probably
_always_ use a (virtual) unsigned 64 bit counter.
On 01/22/2011 03:31 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hi seedshope,
Le 22/01/2011 02:56, seedshope a écrit :
My patch is ok, I just two tabs in my e-mail, But I sent the mail,
It is change.
Do you send the patch through git format-patch and git send-email?
Yes, I use the git format-patch and git
On 01/22/2011 01:52 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Hello.
seedshope wrote:
Since SDRAM init function have already change, So the SDRAM
initial function must be change.
This description sounds somewhat tautological...
Signed-off-by: seedshope bocui...@gmail.com
Your real name is required in
Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
In message 4d3b1c0c.4040...@free.fr you wrote:
Le 22/01/2011 18:40, Dirk Behme a =E9crit :
On 22.01.2011 13:46, Alexander Holler wrote:
A patch for write?() and read?() is currently in the
u-boot-arm-repository (but not in the master and not in 2010.12):
Dear Dach Miroslaw,
In message 1b4f8000449511488d1a640dd6deca350392a...@mailbox0a.psi.ch you
wrote:
Could you please direct me to some manual/how to to find out how to
configure IDE
access by means of the CONFIG_IDE_* . I have examined several header
files in u-boot/include/configs
and
Change from V1:
patch 1:
patch 2: Delete some compile information from commit.
patch 3: Add LED modify information and Delete some compile information from
commit.
patch 4: Add new patch for SDRAM init.
Change from v2:
patch2: Modify Makefile for arch/arm/cpu/arm1176/s3c64xx/cpu_init.s in build
Fix CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR undefined issue.
Signed-off-by: Zhong Hongbo bocui...@gmail.com
diff --git a/include/configs/smdk6400.h b/include/configs/smdk6400.h
index 671f2c7..c9acf58 100644
--- a/include/configs/smdk6400.h
+++ b/include/configs/smdk6400.h
@@ -44,6 +44,11 @@
#define
Modify Makefile for cpu_init.c and Start.s use some label,this defined
u-boot.lds of arch/arm/cpu/arm1176. But SMDK6400 use the link script
board/samsung/smdk6400/u-boot-nand.lds. So add some label form u-boot.lds
to u-boot-nand.lds
Signed-off-by: Zhong Hongbo bocui...@gmail.com
diff --git
The first, the cpu_init.o have already been link for cmd_link_o_target
atfer compile, But, The link script re-link the point file. So the link
machine will generate multiple definition error information.
The second, Since the first 4kB of nand boot featue code move to nand_spl,
So It is not
In the nand_spl feature of SMDK6400. Add some relocation symbols to
nand_spl/board/samsung/smdk6400/u-boot.lds to fix the compile error.
Signed-off-by: Zhong Hongbo bocui...@gmail.com
diff --git a/nand_spl/board/samsung/smdk6400/u-boot.lds
b/nand_spl/board/samsung/smdk6400/u-boot.lds
index
Since nand boot have some limit for the first 4KB, We only
disable the LED function to reduce the code space. At the
same time, Fix the compile error for LED function undefined
in the compile time of nand_spl.
Signed-off-by: Zhong Hongbo bocui...@gmail.com
diff --git
Signed-off-by: Zhong Hongbo bocui...@gmail.com
diff --git a/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c
b/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c
index 35aa40b..13c7ed5 100644
--- a/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c
+++ b/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c
@@ -78,10 +78,16 @@ int board_init(void)
return
Dear Wolfgang,
Thank you very much for your hints. This is a good staring point for me to
continue with u-boot and Compact Flash.
Best Regards
Miroslaw Dach
-Original Message-
From: Wolfgang Denk [mailto:w...@denx.de]
Sent: Sat 1/22/2011 8:39 PM
To: Dach Miroslaw
Cc:
Hi Wolfgang,
Le 22/01/2011 20:19, Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
Agreed for unnecessary mult-div, but 64-bit we would not avoid, and
should not IMO, when the HW has it.
When attempting to come up with true generic code, we should probably
_always_ use a (virtual) unsigned 64
Hi seedshope,
Le 22/01/2011 20:23, seedshope a écrit :
Hi Amicalement
That's Albert, actually. :)
I check my patch 6 on the
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot, It look fine.
I have a bit despondent. Why do you think it has a format problem.
V5 of your patch has one more
-Original Message-
From: Lei Wen [mailto:lei...@marvell.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:13 AM
To: Wolfgang Denk; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Prafulla Wadaskar; Yu Tang;
Ashish Karkare; Prabhanjan Sarnaik; Lei Wen
Subject: [PATCH V5 0/5] Add Pantheon soc and dkb board support
On 01/23/2011 04:28 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hi seedshope,
Le 22/01/2011 20:23, seedshope a écrit :
Hi Amicalement
That's Albert, actually. :)
I check my patch 6 on the
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot, It look fine.
I have a bit despondent. Why do you think it has
Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
In message 4d3b3b5c.2060...@free.fr you wrote:
When attempting to come up with true generic code, we should probably
_always_ use a (virtual) unsigned 64 bit counter.
That's fine with me. We'll just have to keep in mind that with a 32-bit
HW counter, the upper 32
Dear seedshope,
In message 4d3b40ac.8090...@gmail.com you wrote:
yes, I just found the error in web site. I miss something in my
thunderbird. such as tab convert space, So the format is change.
Here, I beg you to forgot my miss.
It is usually helpful to search for and read the available
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
With all this half quoting and deleting of important parts,
my original proposal was lost again.
If you really care to look at it, it
1. does not have issues with rollover
2. does not have problems with nested timeouts
3. does 64 bit mul/div
Dear haiying.w...@freescale.com,
In message 1291217737-3870-4-git-send-email-haiying.w...@freescale.com you
wrote:
From: Haiying Wang haiying.w...@freescale.com
TPL is introduced to enable a loader stub that boots out of some type of RAM,
after being loaded by an SPL or similar
Dear Kumar Gala,
In message be116222-9427-4216-9cae-00e3a4b14...@kernel.crashing.org you wrote:
Did you plan on review this patch?
Just done - I wonder if this code has ever been tested at all?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk Detlev
Dear haiying.w...@freescale.com,
In message 1291218463-4211-1-git-send-email-haiying.w...@freescale.com you
wrote:
From: Haiying Wang haiying.w...@freescale.com
Signed-off-by: Haiying Wang haiying.w...@freescale.com
---
Splitted from TPL patch to only address 85xx changes
Le 22/01/2011 22:26, Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
Hmm... My idea with providing time() with an argument was that precisely
since we are interested only in elapsed time, not absolute time, our
basic time function should be able to tell us relative times.
The disadvantage of this approach is that
42 matches
Mail list logo
