Hi, Andreas Bießmann wrote,
Hi Hans-Christian,
On 05/11/2015 01:19 PM, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
Around Mon 11 May 2015 13:07:22 +0200 or thereabout, Andreas Bießmann wrote:
This series deletes avr32-boards that are still using the ancient arch/avr32/lib/board.c code. If one would like his board to stay in u-boot there is a last chance to convert it to generic board _now_. It should be as easy as defining these three values in the board config:
|/* generic board */ |#define CONFIG_SYS_GENERIC_BOARD |#define CONFIG_BOARD_EARLY_INIT_F |#define CONFIG_BOARD_EARLY_INIT_R
I would prefer this solution over removing all the board support for AVR32 targets in U-Boot.
Me too ...
Sadly, I do not have the time to work with AVR32 in U-Boot.
... but I'd prefer to run-time test this change on a real hardware. Unfortunately I do not own any of the removed ones.
<snip>
Andreas Bießmann (7): avr32: delete non generic board atngw100 avr32: delete non generic board favr-32-ezkit avr32: delete non generic board hammerhead avr32: delete non generic board mimc200 avr32: delete non generic board's atstk100{3,4,6} avr32: take maintainership for atstk1002 avr32: delete ancient board.c
If one were to prioritize, then keeping the atngw100 board would be great.
+1, but as said above, I want a run-time test and can't do it for my own. Waldemar talked to me lately to get his ngw100 up running current u-boot (2015.01 I think). So Waldemar, could you please do a runtime test for atngw100 and required adoptions? Or anyone else?
I can try a runtime test tommorow. I even now have two devices. Last time 2015.01 worked, but git with your changes does not. I have'nt got the time to debug it via JTAG or GDB and I think my knowledge about the u-boot internals are too bad.
What if I sent you my spare board?
Better one board with good support, then two with no support.
best regards Waldemar