From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dirk Behme Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 19:59:09 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] ARM Pull Request In-Reply-To: <20090906131658.GE18844@game.jcrosoft.org> References: <20090905013643.GK30118@game.jcrosoft.org> <4AA1F8FF.4090206@googlemail.com> <20090905153750.GC18844@game.jcrosoft.org> <4AA360F8.5040209@googlemail.com> <20090906131658.GE18844@game.jcrosoft.org> Message-ID: <4AA3F86D.4040403@googlemail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 09:12 Sun 06 Sep , Dirk Behme wrote: >> Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: >>> On 07:37 Sat 05 Sep , Dirk Behme wrote: >>>> Dear Jean-Christophe, >>>> >>>> Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Please pull >>>>> The following changes since commit 3aa8b68d80dbcb6829af60485c1e388b39af793d: >>>>> Wolfgang Denk (1): >>>>> Merge branch 'next' of ../next >>>>> >>>>> are available in the git repository at: >>>>> >>>>> git://git.denx.de/u-boot-arm.git master >>>>> >>>>> Albin Tonnerre (3): >>>>> at91sam9260/afeb9260: Fix SPI initialization >>>>> Add support for the Calao SBC35-A9G20 board >>>>> Support for the Calao TNY-A9260/TNY-A9G20 boards >>>>> >>>>> Frederik Kriewitz (1): >>>>> Add support for the DevKit8000 board >>>> I'd like to have the omap3_devkit8000.h version of that patch, instead. >>> this one is fine no need not the omap3_devkit8000 version >> Jean-Christophe: In >> >> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-August/059087.html >> >> we agreed on omap3_devkit8000. > in v4 the author prefer it devkit8000 so I respect it You missed v5 and v6, no? > for the l2_cache I'm fine to move to omap3 as it's really omap3 specific Again, you confuse people. From your previous mail: "as I said now more than 10 times on omap3 we can use the generic ARMV7 cache code" > we clearly need to clean the omap3 and not force other soc to duplicate code With http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-August/059087.html we just try to do the opposite: Move the custom code away so that Samsung can use its own (generic?) implementation. Dirk