[U-Boot-Users] Question about CFG_ENV_ADDR during RAMBOOT
ulf at atmel.com
Wed May 23 14:52:22 CEST 2007
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:48:20PM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>> Things are broken, because Wolfgang refuses patches fixing problems on AT91 on principle.
>> Removing support will cause more work for people
>> because the existing patches to make things work
>> will have to be modified...
> Wolfgang is waiting for custodian to comment on patch. So far nothing
> happened. Please note that I'm the last one who wants to see support of
> this board removed. Also I'm all for applying patches you send to the
> mailing list (that serie 1,2,3,4,6,7,10,24) except for 24.noflash
> which seems a bit hackish (and yes I run into the very same problem this
> patch is trying to solve recently). If there is anything I can do to
> help them to get applied, just let me know.
>> What is the point of sabotaging others peoples efforts???
> Removing non working code makes whole codebase cleaner. Sabotage is
> leaving non working code in repository without any will to at least
> consider applying patches... Anyway, who is responsible for AT91 code?
I think the AT91 group submitted the at91rm9200dk support.
All following patches has been rejected.
They are fed up with lack of response, has decided not to waste time time on this
until the attitude is changed.
I tried to resubmit, but since Grant and Wolfgang has come to the conclusion
that sometimes memory is not memory I see no possibility to
The correct approach is to fix the support, and I believe Grant started
the debate by saying that he wanted to fix it.
I have not seen any result of this.
> Best regards,
More information about the U-Boot