Support for new MIMC200 board
PATCH 1/1 Support for new MIMC200 board
Please consider the following patch which adds support for a new AVR32 based board.
The board is closely based on Atmel's NGW100 reference board, but has an extra 8MByte FLASH and 128KByte FRAM.
The compressed patch is 66k, so I've stuck it on our website.
http://www.mimc.co.uk/mimc200-new-board.patch.bz2
Thanks
Mark
PATCH 1/1 Support for new MIMC200 board
Quoted 10 lines · On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:34:51 +0100 Mark Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
Please consider the following patch which adds support for a new AVR32 based board.
The board is closely based on Atmel's NGW100 reference board, but has an extra 8MByte FLASH and 128KByte FRAM.
The compressed patch is 66k, so I've stuck it on our website.
Could you post it in plain text attachment/inline instead? It is a bit hard to comment on a compressed patch file ;)
Is the patch based on the latest uclibc.org repo or Buildroot for AVR32 release (v2.2.0)?
Signature · 2 lines
Best regards, Hans-Christian Egtvedt
PATCH 1/1 Support for new MIMC200 board
Quoted 9 lines · Hans-Christian Egtvedt
Quoted 6 lines · On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:34:51 +0100 Mark Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
Please consider the following patch which adds support for a new AVR32 based board.
The board is closely based on Atmel's NGW100 reference board, but has an extra 8MByte FLASH and 128KByte FRAM.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
The compressed patch is 66k, so I've stuck it on our website.
Could you post it in plain text attachment/inline instead? It is a bit hard to comment on a compressed patch file ;)
Urm ... the patch is about 220k uncompressed. I thought it was a "bad thing" to post such a large patch.
However, I'm happy to do so if you want !!
Quoted 2 lines
Is the patch based on the latest uclibc.org repo or Buildroot for AVR32 release (v2.2.0)?
The latest svn (actually r23594).
Mark
PATCH 1/1 Support for new MIMC200 board
Quoted 15 lines · On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:33:35 +0100 Mark Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 14 lines · Hans-Christian Egtvedt
Quoted 10 lines · On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:34:51 +0100 Mark Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
Please consider the following patch which adds support for a new AVR32 based board.
The board is closely based on Atmel's NGW100 reference board, but has an extra 8MByte FLASH and 128KByte FRAM.
The compressed patch is 66k, so I've stuck it on our website.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Could you post it in plain text attachment/inline instead? It is a bit hard to comment on a compressed patch file ;)
Urm ... the patch is about 220k uncompressed. I thought it was a "bad thing" to post such a large patch.
However, I'm happy to do so if you want !!
Hmm, that was a bit large, yes.
You must split up your patch, it contains far more than just a new board. Each patch should only add/change one feature in Buildroot.
I would also recommend that you get all the kernel and U-Boot stuff upstream first, and then go for the Buildroot stuff.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Is the patch based on the latest uclibc.org repo or Buildroot for AVR32 release (v2.2.0)?
The latest svn (actually r23594).
Then it is better if you post it to uclibc.org mailing list, I import stuff from uclibc.org, so eventually it will end up in my fork() as well.
Signature · 2 lines
Best regards, Hans-Christian Egtvedt
PATCH 1/1 Support for new MIMC200 board
Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
<snip>
Quoted 5 lines
You must split up your patch, it contains far more than just a new board. Each patch should only add/change one feature in Buildroot.
I would also recommend that you get all the kernel and U-Boot stuff upstream first, and then go for the Buildroot stuff.
Ho, hum. I was kinda hoping to put that off ... too lazy, too many other things to do !!. But I guess I just need to buckle down and get it sorted.
In fact the u-boot stuff *is* already upstream ... the u-boot patch is a bit of a hang over. Oops.
the linux stuff was a bit of a sticking point ... Atmel's AVR32 patches are all based on 2.6.25.10. But I'm guessing that if I submit my new RTC support code won't it only be added to the latest kernels ?
How can I submit my RTC code *and* still use 2.6.25.10 ?
I know I could use Haavard's latest linux (2.6.27.??), but then that's moving further away from the buildroot "all-in-one" principal !?!
Any ideas ?
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Is the patch based on the latest uclibc.org repo or Buildroot for AVR32 release (v2.2.0)?
The latest svn (actually r23594).
Then it is better if you post it to uclibc.org mailing list, I import stuff from uclibc.org, so eventually it will end up in my
fork()as well.
Okay ... will do.
Thanks for the feedback.
Mark
PATCH 1/1 Support for new MIMC200 board
Quoted 10 lines · On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:07:25 +0100 Mark Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
<snip>
Quoted 5 lines
You must split up your patch, it contains far more than just a new board. Each patch should only add/change one feature in Buildroot.
I would also recommend that you get all the kernel and U-Boot stuff upstream first, and then go for the Buildroot stuff.
Quoted 7 lines
Ho, hum. I was kinda hoping to put that off ... too lazy, too many other things to do !!. But I guess I just need to buckle down and get it sorted.
In fact the u-boot stuff *is* already upstream ... the u-boot patch is a bit of a hang over. Oops.
In 1.3.5 perhaps? Version 1.3.4 is default in BR now AFAIK.
I think I just applied a patch to my development three which added your board...
Quoted 6 lines
the linux stuff was a bit of a sticking point ... Atmel's AVR32 patches are all based on 2.6.25.10. But I'm guessing that if I submit my new RTC support code won't it only be added to the latest kernels ?
How can I submit my RTC code *and* still use 2.6.25.10 ?
Ah, you will need to submit the RTC code for the latest kernel, and add a backported version for Buildroot.
It is a bit tricky the transition period before you have your stuff applied to the different projects.
Quoted 6 lines
I know I could use Haavard's latest linux (2.6.27.??), but then that's moving further away from the buildroot "all-in-one" principal !?!
Any ideas ?
It is fine to use 2.6.27 in Buildroot, I'll make a release later today which takes advantage of that.
We have a new board coming out soon, and the patches are made for 2.6.27-rcN.
<snipp>
Signature · 2 lines
Best regards, Hans-Christian Egtvedt