On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 04:38:26PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 03:43:50PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
quoted
annoying. If nothing moves I might just go ahead with those changes and
simply rip the uImage make target out of the kernel as well. Maybe the
inconvenience will be a sufficient incentive for people to lobby proper
u-Boot support. And it is not like if the u-Boot patches didn't exist
Oh, dear. Any pointers to the discussions on the u-boot side?
Certainly. Many different threads actually. Here's a few:
http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/thread=114981
http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/thread=115774
And this is not the first time this issue has come up:
http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/thread=83824
http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/thread=81546/force_load=t/focus=84138
Yet more u-Boot woes:
http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/thread=53973
I'm sure there are others, but that's what I've quickly dug out.
So why are we still supporting uboot in the mainline kernel on ARM?