From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao12.cox.net (fed1rmmtao12.cox.net [68.230.241.27]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0E0368321 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:59:44 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 06:59:42 -0700 From: Matt Porter To: Stefan Roese Message-ID: <20050919065942.A25356@cox.net> References: <200509161306.17103.sr@denx.de> <20050916162733.GA8019@gate.ebshome.net> <200509191302.15462.sr@denx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200509191302.15462.sr@denx.de>; from sr@denx.de on Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 01:02:14PM +0200 Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc32: cleanup AMCC PPC4xx eval boards to better support U-Boot List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 01:02:14PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote: > Hi Eugene, > > On Friday 16 September 2005 18:27, Eugene Surovegin wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:06:16PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote: > > > Add U-Boot support to AMCC PPC405 eval boards (bubinga, sycamore and > > > walnut) and cleanup PPC440 eval boards (bamboo, ebony, luan and ocotea) > > > to better support U-Boot as bootloader. > > > > In general, 44x pieces look OK, but 40x aren't. Notice, that we don't > > have any #ifdef CONFIG_UBOOT in 44x sources. Let's not add them for > > 40x, try to replicate the same boot-wrapper approach as Matt used for > > 44x. > > OK. I'll split the patch in two (44x and 40x stuff) so we can get the 44x > pieces on the way. > > Just to be sure: The 44x boot-wrapper approach you mention is > "boot/simple/pibs.c"? Yes, there's both boot/simple/pibs.c and boot/simple/openbios.c that were created so we could have the default firmware and u-boot use the same kernel build. -Matt