[U-Boot-Users] PATCH: PCMCIA and PXA250

[U-Boot-Users] PATCH: PCMCIA and PXA250

[Leon KUKOVEC]

Hi Wolfgang,

I have removed the Linux system header files and modified only
include/linux/io.h with #ifdef for PXA.

Let me know if you need anything else,

PS: hopefully not :-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Leon.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: u-boot-pxa-pcmcia.patch.bz2
Type: application/x-bzip
Size: 10247 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20040325/0135694c/attachment.bin 

[U-Boot-Users] PATCH: PCMCIA and PXA250

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <1080235496.7120.4.camel@tt-devel.ultra.si> you wrote:
> 
> I have removed the Linux system header files and modified only
> include/linux/io.h with #ifdef for PXA.
> 
> Let me know if you need anything else,

Argh... I understand this renders the  previous  patch  invalid?  OK,
please forget the message I sent 10 minutes ago.

> PS: hopefully not :-)

I'm afraid I do.

Please strip trailing white space.

Please get rid of include/linux/linkage.h

I still don't understand why we  need  lib_arm/io-readsw-armv4.S  and
lib_arm/io-writesw-armv4.S - didn't we agree to eliminate these?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd at denx.de
If there are self-made purgatories, then we all have to live in them.
	-- Spock, "This Side of Paradise", stardate 3417.7

[U-Boot-Users] PATCH: PCMCIA and PXA250

[Leon KUKOVEC]

Hi Wolfgang,

I don't know if working on my patch has any more sense at all.
Christian Pell submitted a patch for PXA PCMCIA and the
patch got accepted on 1st April 2004. My patch was waiting from
Dec 2003 and still has issues - it's a port from Linux kernel.

What do you suggest?

-- 

Best Regards,
	Leon.

[U-Boot-Users] PATCH: PCMCIA and PXA250

[Christian Pell]

On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 09:15, Leon KUKOVEC wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
> 
> I don't know if working on my patch has any more sense at all.
> Christian Pell submitted a patch for PXA PCMCIA and the
> patch got accepted on 1st April 2004. My patch was waiting from
> Dec 2003 and still has issues - it's a port from Linux kernel.
> 
> What do you suggest?

Hi, sorry I didn't see your patch and redo the work :-(. Anyway it looks
like you have the same problems like me with endianess on PXA (the
#define ARMEB ...). I will try to sort it out this weekend and send the
patch.

Regards,

-- 
Christian Pellegrin 
<chri@ascensit.com>, <c.pellegrin@eurotech.it>, 
<chri@infis.univ.ts.it>, <c.pellegrin@exadron.com>

[U-Boot-Users] PATCH: PCMCIA and PXA250

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <1082099717.27122.7.camel@tt-devel.ultra.si> you wrote:
> 
> I don't know if working on my patch has any more sense at all.

I don't know either. I don't have any such hardware here for testing,
so I can just check formal criteria.

> What do you suggest?

Please check the code in CVS. If it's working for you, fine. If  not,
please help debugging / improving it.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd at denx.de
There are bugs and then there are bugs.  And then there are bugs.
                                                    - Karl Lehenbauer

[U-Boot-Users] PATCH: PCMCIA and PXA250

[Leon KUKOVEC]

Hi Woflgang,

Note that I had to change TEXT_ADDRESS for board/wepep250, otherwise the image
does not fit in (with IDE, PCMCIA, FAT support). The TEXT_ADDRESS change is as
minimal as it can get.

Note that before applying PXA PCMCIA, you need to apply Pierre's patch for
IDE.

Can anyone that worked on ARM memory layout confirm that please?

Changes:
	o	PCMCIA support for PXA

Build Report:

U-BOOT TOP BUILD REPORT:

	builds that FAILED to build:
		AR405
		ERIC
		EVAL5200
		MPC8540ADS
		MPC8560ADS

U-BOOT PXA PCMCIA BUILD REPORT: (applied top-pxa-pcmcia patch)

	builds that FAILED to build:
		AR405
		ERIC
		EVAL5200
		MPC8540ADS
		MPC8560ADS
		
U-BOOT PXA PCMCIA BUILD REPORT: (applied top-pxa-pcmcia patch + 
                                 configuration changes)

	builds that FAILED to build:
		AR405
		ERIC
		EVAL5200
		MPC8540ADS
		MPC8560ADS

Any issues, let me know.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Leon.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: u-boot-top-pxa-pcmcia.diff.bz2
Type: application/x-bzip2
Size: 11516 bytes
Desc: 
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20040316/c02c79ee/attachment.bin 

[U-Boot-Users] PATCH: PCMCIA and PXA250

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Leon,

in message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403161449080.13005-101000@tt-devel.ultra.si> you wrote:
> 
> Note that I had to change TEXT_ADDRESS for board/wepep250, otherwise the image
> does not fit in (with IDE, PCMCIA, FAT support). The TEXT_ADDRESS change is as
> minimal as it can get.

Thanks. One question: the patch brings in a couple of [Linux]  system
header files:

	include/asm-arm/arch-pxa/io.h
	include/asm-arm/assembler.h
	include/asm-arm/io.h
	include/asm-arm/proc-armv/assembler.h
	include/linux/linkage.h

and even some assembler code:

	lib_arm/io-readsw-armv4.S
	lib_arm/io-writesw-armv4.S

Do we _really_ need all these header files? At first glance  I  think
it  should  be  possible to without most of them. Also, the assembler
files seem to be pulled in for ALL ARM boards?

Can you please check and verify that we really _need_ all this stuff?

Thanks.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd at denx.de
When properly administered, vacations do not  diminish  productivity:
for every week you're away and get nothing done, there's another when
your boss is away and you get twice as much done.  -- Daniel B. Luten

[U-Boot-Users] PATCH: PCMCIA and PXA250

[Leon KUKOVEC]

Hi Wolfgang,

> Thanks. One question: the patch brings in a couple of [Linux]  system
> header files:

[ - snip - ]

> 
> and even some assembler code:

[ - snip - ]

> Do we _really_ need all these header files? At first glance  I  think
> it  should  be  possible to without most of them. Also, the assembler
> files seem to be pulled in for ALL ARM boards?
> 
> Can you please check and verify that we really _need_ all this stuff?

I'm not saying that I'm right, but here's my philosophy:

U-Boot uses Linux system header file or at least a portion of it.
If I copy a portion of a Linux system header file and put it
somewhere inside U-Boot I automaticaly loose the track of it.
If I copy the whole file and put it at the same place then I can do
diffs with Linux header file and the track is there - it's the same
file. A header file will most likelky contain only macros and will
not affect the image size at all.

That's my view, please let me know if you really want me to "hack"
around this, remove the header files and put defines where they're
needed.

About the lib_arm/ and assembly files. lib_arm is an archive. The boards
that don't need __raw_readsw and __raw_writesw won't have it. It's an
archive - object wont get linked if the symbol is not needed. I did
MAKEALL for all the boards that are there and none of the build fails
(except for those that fail in the -top-cvs too)

Let me know your thoughts,

-- 

Best Regards,
	Leon.

[U-Boot-Users] PATCH: PCMCIA and PXA250

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Leon,

in message <1080119893.1411.18.camel@tt-devel.ultra.si> you wrote:
> 
> > Can you please check and verify that we really _need_ all this stuff?
> 
> I'm not saying that I'm right, but here's my philosophy:
> 
> U-Boot uses Linux system header file or at least a portion of it.

The question is if we use a significant part of such a  Linux  header
file or just 5 lines of definitions.

> If I copy a portion of a Linux system header file and put it
> somewhere inside U-Boot I automaticaly loose the track of it.
> If I copy the whole file and put it at the same place then I can do
> diffs with Linux header file and the track is there - it's the same
> file. A header file will most likelky contain only macros and will
> not affect the image size at all.

I agree.

But I have seen many cases where a header file was pulled in for a  2
line  macro definition, and the inclusin of this header file required
3 others to be added also, which in turn  required  another  5  or  6
header files.

> That's my view, please let me know if you really want me to "hack"
> around this, remove the header files and put defines where they're
> needed.

That depends on how much you need. If it is a significant part of the
Linux header file,  then  go  for  it.  Otherwise  just  extract  the
relevant definitions.

And if the Linux header file depends on other headers,  please  check
if  these  are  required for your stuff, or only for other things you
don't need. Often it's easy to add and to keep track of a few "#if 0"
/ "#endif" lines in a file to eliminate  such  references  for  stuff
that is irrelevant to U-Boot.

> About the lib_arm/ and assembly files. lib_arm is an archive. The boards
> that don't need __raw_readsw and __raw_writesw won't have it. It's an
> archive - object wont get linked if the symbol is not needed. I did
> MAKEALL for all the boards that are there and none of the build fails
> (except for those that fail in the -top-cvs too)

But we pull in 200 lines of code for 16 lines we need.

I don't want to add too many  things  that  we  don't  actually  use.
People  start  to  turn  away  from  U-Boot  when  they  see that the
compressed tarball is 4 MB / uncompressed 26 MB. This is  a  LOT  for
just a boot loader.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd at denx.de
Life. Don't talk to me about life.      - Marvin the Paranoid Android

[U-Boot-Users] PATCH: PCMCIA and PXA250

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Leon,

in message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403161449080.13005-101000@tt-devel.ultra.si> you wrote:
> 
> Changes:
> 	o	PCMCIA support for PXA

Please resubmit your patch after removing trailing white  space  from
your files.

Please also make the new header files  idempotent.  Affected  are  at
least:

include/asm-arm/arch-pxa/wep-ep250.h
include/asm-arm/assembler.h


Regarding  include/asm-arm/assembler.h:  U-Boot  will  never  #define
"__ARMEB__"   or  "__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__",  so  why  do  we  need  these
definitions here?

What is include/asm-arm/proc-armv/assembler.h needed for?
What do we need include/linux/linkage.h for?
What do we need lib_arm/io-readsw-armv4.S for?
What do we need lib_arm/io-writesw-armv4.S for?

In general, please restrict the number of new created  files  to  the
absolute minimum.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd at denx.de
"Unibus timeout fatal trap program lost sorry"  -  An  error  message
printed by DEC's RSTS operating system for the PDP-11