[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH 1/3] SDHC Support for AT572d940HF-EB

[Ken.Fuchs at bench.com]

> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:21:59 -0500
> Ken.Fuchs wrote:
> 
> > The U-Boot AT91 MCI driver is no longer the exclusive work
> > of Atmel.  So, I do not believe that a sole Atmel copyright
> > is correct for the AT91 MCI driver.
> > 
> > I added MMC 4.x support to the AT91 MCI driver a while back.
> > In response to a request for AT91 MMC 4.x support, I
> > submitted it to the list in the form of an informal patch
> > against u-boot-1.1.5_atmel1.2 on April 29, 2008.  Without
> > much effort, I can see that much of the code that I added is
> > still in the various files of the AT91 MCI driver, but my
> > company's copyright has been removed.  (Please note that I
> > never removed anyone else's copyright.)

After further investigation, I no longer believe that my MMC 4.x
MCI driver code has been committed to either the u-boot-at91 or
u-boot repository.  I've found a reasonable explanation for all
code similarities that prompted me send my first message on this
topic.  My apologies to all those involved in ensuring that
U-Boot source code complies with the GNU GPL and to the
developers of the new U-Boot Atmel MCI driver.

Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:

> Which driver are you talking about? I don't see any AT91 MCI driver in
> the u-boot tree...

u-boot-1.1.5_atmel_1.2/cpu/arm926ejs/at91sam926x/atmel_mci.c

On 2008-Apr-29 20:46 UTC, I sent to the u-boot-users mailing list
an informal patch based on u-boot-1.1.5_atmel_1.2 and an old
cpu/arm926ejs/at91sam926x/atmel_mci.c patch.  My patch
adds MMC 4.x support to the AT91SAM926x MCI driver in the
u-boot-1.1.5_atmel_1.2 tree.

However, I was mistaken about my code being committed into the
official u-boot tree.  Please see my response above.

Sincerely,

Ken Fuchs