[U-Boot-Users] Das U-Boot support for Atmel AT91SAM926x-EK (or other boards with an AT91SAM926x processor)?
Are there plans to add AT91SAM926x-EK board support to the main U-Boot repository or an appropriate custodian repository?
If so, what is the anticipated time frame of this support?
------
In the official U-Boot 1.3.1 release, I wasn't able to locate any boards with an AT91SAM926x processor. Are any supported?
--- Comment ---
I'm interested in EBI NOR booting of AT91SAM926x processors as opposed to SPI NOR (Dataflash) booting of these processors which is the usual case.
If necessary, I'll use u-boot 1.2.0 as patched by Atmel to run on AT91SAM926x, but I'd prefer to use the official U-Boot code.
Sincerely,
Ken Fuchs
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Das U-Boot support for Atmel AT91SAM926x-EK (orother boards with an AT91SAM926x processor)?
Are there plans to add AT91SAM926x-EK board support to the main U-Boot repository or an appropriate custodian repository?
If so, what is the anticipated time frame of this support?
In the official U-Boot 1.3.1 release, I wasn't able to locate any boards with an AT91SAM926x processor. Are any supported?
--- Comment ---
I'm interested in EBI NOR booting of AT91SAM926x processors as opposed to SPI NOR (Dataflash) booting of these processors which is the usual case.
If necessary, I'll use u-boot 1.2.0 as patched by Atmel to run on AT91SAM926x, but I'd prefer to use the official U-Boot code.
It seems very difficult to get patches accepted.
The AT91 team tried, they gave up due to no repsonse.
I tried, and got everything rejected until Peter Pearse became custodian. Then I sent in few simple patches which got accepted. I have not had the time to do anything about it since then.
The AVR32 stuff uses basically the same peripherals as the AT91 and many drivers will be common. Taking the Atmel patches to 1.2.0 and forwarding them, is not a good idea, because the AT91 should use drivers common with the AVR32
The AT91CAP9 stuff is now beeing processed in the patch system and most of the stuff should be common with the AT91SAM9, so once CAP9 support is there, I think it will be much simpler.
Sincerely,
Ken Fuchs
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
Best Regards Ulf Samuelsson
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:23:00 +0100 "Ulf Samuelsson" ulf@atmel.com wrote:
The AT91CAP9 stuff is now beeing processed in the patch system and most of the stuff should be common with the AT91SAM9, so once CAP9 support is there, I think it will be much simpler.
It is in mainline now:
hskinnemoen@dhcp-252-066:~/git/u-boot/upstream$ ls board/atmel/ at91cap9adk/ at91rm9200dk/ atngw100/ atstk1000/
I think the CAP9 was a very nice step in the right direction of showing that we can actually reuse drivers across different SoC platforms, but there's still some work to do. Dataflash and mmc comes to mind...
I'd be happy to help out if someone wants to move cpu/at32ap/atmel_mci.c somewhere more appropriate and make it work on AT91. But I suspect that it would be best to consolidate some of the existing duplication across the mmc drivers already in the tree first (the command and response definitions, etc.)
Haavard
In message 001401c8720c$9650a260$8a01a8c0@atmel.com you wrote:
It seems very difficult to get patches accepted.
This may have been true one full year ago.
A lot has happened since. Please don't repeat such claims that are simply not true any more.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
participants (4)
-
Haavard Skinnemoen -
Ken.Fuchs＠bench.com -
Ulf Samuelsson -
Wolfgang Denk