Op 13 mrt. 2013, om 21:19 heeft Matt Porter mporter@ti.com het volgende geschreven:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 08:02:26PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 13 mrt. 2013, om 16:07 heeft Nishanth Menon nm@ti.com het volgende geschreven:
On 16:05-20130313, Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 13 mrt. 2013, om 16:02 heeft Nishanth Menon nm@ti.com het volgende geschreven:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Koen Kooi koen@dominion.thruhere.net wrote:
Op 13 mrt. 2013, om 15:35 heeft Nishanth Menon nm@ti.com het volgende geschreven:
> On 10:20-20130313, Tom Rini wrote: >> From: Koen Kooi koen@dominion.thruhere.net >> >> Signed-off-by: Koen Kooi koen@dominion.thruhere.net >> Acked-by: Peter Korsgaard jacmet@sunsite.dk >> --- >> include/configs/am335x_evm.h | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/include/configs/am335x_evm.h b/include/configs/am335x_evm.h >> index 33ee2c4..abf4e39 100644 >> --- a/include/configs/am335x_evm.h >> +++ b/include/configs/am335x_evm.h >> @@ -87,6 +87,8 @@ >> "findfdt="\ >> "if test $board_name = A335BONE; then " \ >> "setenv fdtfile am335x-bone.dtb; fi; " \ >> + "if test $board_name = A335BNLT; then " \ >> + "setenv fdtfile am335x-bonelt.dtb; fi; " \ > could we not use am335x-boneblack.dtb instead?
it's bonelt in the kernel, so boneblack would fail to load a dtb
$ git describe v3.9-rc2 $ ls arch/arm/boot/dts/*bone*.dts* arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-bone.dts ???
What a surprise, missing stuff in mainline! It's present in the vendor kernel, which is what is shipping with the board.
No surprise there as marketing names are finalized close to product launches. If there is an vendor u-boot, it can remain in sync with what ever the vendor kernel is. If it is upstream, we might want to think longterm.
I'm in charge of pushing the am335x-bonelt.dts upstream to Linus and I'd like to keep everything in sync. I'm not fond of renaming it again, the EEPROM says BNLT, not BNB :)
That's a horrible reason to confuse users. The EEPROM contents are irrelevant. Users look for something to match the board name, this does not. It's wrong.
It is stupid, but that's what you get for renaming boards. The real problem with this is that it is a flag day, the kernel and u-boot need to change both at the same time. And after that you'll have a mismatch if you use different versions.
Anyway, patches welcome for the vendor kernel to rename it.
regards,
Koen