[U-Boot] [PATCH 0/7] avr32: remove non-generic boards

[Waldemar Brodkorb]

Hi,
Andreas Bießmann wrote,

> Hi Hans-Christian,
> 
> On 05/11/2015 01:19 PM, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
> > Around Mon 11 May 2015 13:07:22 +0200 or thereabout, Andreas Bießmann wrote:
> >> This series deletes avr32-boards that are still using the ancient
> >> arch/avr32/lib/board.c code. If one would like his board to stay in u-boot
> >> there is a last chance to convert it to generic board _now_. It should be as easy
> >> as defining these three values in the board config:
> >>
> >> |/* generic board */
> >> |#define CONFIG_SYS_GENERIC_BOARD
> >> |#define CONFIG_BOARD_EARLY_INIT_F
> >> |#define CONFIG_BOARD_EARLY_INIT_R
> > 
> > I would prefer this solution over removing all the board support for AVR32
> > targets in U-Boot.
> 
> Me too ...
> 
> > Sadly, I do not have the time to work with AVR32 in U-Boot.
> 
> ... but I'd prefer to run-time test this change on a real hardware.
> Unfortunately I do not own any of the removed ones.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >> Andreas Bießmann (7):
> >>   avr32: delete non generic board atngw100
> >>   avr32: delete non generic board favr-32-ezkit
> >>   avr32: delete non generic board hammerhead
> >>   avr32: delete non generic board mimc200
> >>   avr32: delete non generic board's atstk100{3,4,6}
> >>   avr32: take maintainership for atstk1002
> >>   avr32: delete ancient board.c
> > 
> > If one were to prioritize, then keeping the atngw100 board would be great.
> 
> +1, but as said above, I want a run-time test and can't do it for my own.
> Waldemar talked to me lately to get his ngw100 up running current u-boot
> (2015.01 I think). So Waldemar, could you please do a runtime test for
> atngw100 and required adoptions? Or anyone else?

I can try a runtime test tommorow. I even now have two devices.
Last time 2015.01 worked, but git with your changes does not.
I have'nt got the time to debug it via JTAG or GDB and I think my
knowledge about the u-boot internals are too bad.

What if I sent you my spare board?

Better one board with good support, then two with no support.

best regards
 Waldemar