Hi Tom, All,
On 18.10.2011 03:43, Tom Rini wrote:
Don't hardcode u-boot.bin size for the case where mkimage signature is
missing, use CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE for this.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Yanok ya...@emcraft.com
So what about this patch? Should I drop it?
Regards, Ilya.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Ilya Yanok ya...@emcraft.com wrote:
Hi Tom, All,
On 18.10.2011 03:43, Tom Rini wrote:
Don't hardcode u-boot.bin size for the case where mkimage signature is
missing, use CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE for this.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Yanok ya...@emcraft.com
So
Don't hardcode u-boot.bin size for the case where mkimage signature is
missing, use CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE for this.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Yanok ya...@emcraft.com
---
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/spl.c |3 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Ilya Yanok ya...@emcraft.com wrote:
Don't hardcode u-boot.bin size for the case where mkimage signature is
missing, use CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE for this.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Yanok ya...@emcraft.com
I don't like this since it means we need to always define
Hi Tom,
On 18.10.2011 03:43, Tom Rini wrote:
Don't hardcode u-boot.bin size for the case where mkimage signature is
missing, use CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE for this.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Yanok ya...@emcraft.com
I don't like this since it means we need to always define this
variable when
5 matches
Mail list logo