From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ag-out-0708.google.com (ag-out-0708.google.com [72.14.246.243]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DAE0DDF48 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 16:41:17 +1100 (EST) Received: by ag-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 33so1574240agc.0 for ; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:41:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <49B1605C.7090709@embeddedarm.com> <20090306184038.GA20537@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <49B19AE0.3080609@embeddedarm.com> <49B1A47F.8040005@embeddedarm.com> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 22:41:15 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] From: Grant Likely To: Eddie Dawydiuk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Eddie Dawydiuk wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Let's try this one more time. The last patch was using the clocks for a >> custom board based on the Yosemite board and was referencing a non-existent >> ethNadr( I forgot to pull out this code out). > > But the question remains: Why do you need simpleboot support for > Yosemite when you can use a uImage or cuImage with u-boot? On a more general note; this patch also diverges from the original model for simple image. The idea behind simpleimage was that it would contain a fully formed device tree, with no fixups necessary. I want to think carefully before diverging from that. Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.