[U-Boot] TI DA8xx/OMAP-L1x support in U-Boot

[Thompson, Nick (GE EntSol, Intelligent Platforms)]

> From: Paulraj, Sandeep
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > First post here, so apologies up front...
> >
> > I was wondering what the status of support for DA8xx in u-boot is.
Is
> > anyone working on that?
> There is unfortunately 0 support.
> >
> > The reason I ask is that I have made an initial port for the TI
da830
> > evm board which seems to be working (serial, ethernet dhcp & tftp
and
> > i2c tested) and seems capable of booting Linux at least.
> That's what U-boot is about :-)
> >
> > It is based on GPL code from several sources, not least of which is
from
> > TI's old 1.3.3 version of u-boot, but I have updated it to support
> > CONFIG_NET_MULTI and sorted out the padding changes in the ns16550
> > driver CONFIGs. It uses already present davinci drivers where
possible.
> >
> > I have interest in getting at least USB and NAND support working as
well
> > - maybe SPI FLASH too - and will work on that as access to hardware
> > allows.
> All these are present in the 1.3.3 version so all you have to di is up
> port
> >
> > My git tree is up to date, but I'm new to git too, so I have no idea
how
> > to dump a patch.
> There is a GIT manual. But just google'ing will also help
> >
> > Regardless, I wanted to check I'm not treading on anyone's toes
first
> > and to gauge interest, especially as TI appear to have done some
work on
> > this in the past.
> Ti will add support but I don't know when. If you so wish you can post
> your own version.
> 
> If you decide to submit patches please submit against u-boot-ti
> >
> > Bye,
> > Nick.
> Thanks,
> Sandeep

My main motivation for this port is to escape the NAND support in 1.3.3
:-) It stores compressed ECC in a non-standard way, puts data in the OOB
area on 2K page devices and only supports ECC1. I'm concerned that all
these things will come back to bite me later.

Thanks for the pointer to the u-boot-ti tree. I will rebase my changes
against that and try to split my diff up into patches smaller than the
current 137kB. Should I use this mailing list, or another one, for RFC
submission?

Thanks,
Nick.