Hi Vladimir,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 5:46 PM Vladimir Oltean olteanv@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 05:18, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 4:04 AM Vladimir Oltean olteanv@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bin,
On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 at 08:05, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 1:50 AM Vladimir Oltean olteanv@gmail.com wrote:
From: Jianchao Wang jianchao.wang@nxp.com
The LS1021A-TSN is a development board built by VVDN/Argonboards in partnership with NXP.
It features the LS1021A SoC and the first-generation SJA1105T Ethernet switch for prototyping implementations of a subset of IEEE 802.1 TSN standards.
Supported boot media: microSD card (via SPL), QSPI flash.
Rev. A of the board uses a Spansion S25FL512S_256K serial flash, which is 64 MB in size and has an erase sector size of 256KB (therefore, flashing the RCW would erase part of U-boot).
nits: U-Boot
Why don't you add a rule to scripts/checkpatch.pl that warns on improper spelling of U-Boot? It would save a lot of time on both ends.
Yep, I once tried to add some misspelled word list of U-Boot to spelling, but checkpatch would generate lots of false-positive warnings (like u-boot.bin) so I gave it up. It seems that we need add some special handling of U-Boot spelling in checkpatch? Do you have better idea?
Ok, so I see that scripts/spelling.txt is case-insensitive, which doesn't work for what you want. I guess it just doesn't matter that much then?
Yes, it's case-insensitive, so it generates too many false-positive warnings and I believe that may annoy people :)
If it does matter to you, one way would be to add explicit checks in the checkpatch script itself.
I did not want to do that as the checkpath script is synced up from Linux kernel upstream, and no U-Boot special handling should be applied.
Regards, Bin