[oe] [PATCH] linux_2.6.38: update support for PcontrolG20 HW rev 2

[Peter Gsellmann]

Hi Eric!

Am Samstag 14 Mai 2011, 19:06:24 schrieb Eric Bénard:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On 29/04/2011 11:45, Peter Gsellmann wrote:
> > All prototypes hardware rev 1 are drawn back
> > so default should be rev 2
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Gsellmann<pgsellmann at portner-elektronik.at>
> > ---
> >   recipes/linux/linux-2.6.38/pcontrolg20/defconfig   | 1761 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >   .../pcontrolg20/pcontrolg20_2.6.38.patch           |  235 +++
> >   recipes/linux/linux_2.6.38.bb                      |    2 +
> >   3 files changed, 1998 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >   create mode 100644 recipes/linux/linux-2.6.38/pcontrolg20/defconfig
> >   create mode 100644 recipes/linux/linux-2.6.38/pcontrolg20/pcontrolg20_2.6.38.patch
> >
> I applied this patch and tried to build the kernel but it seems there is no 
> machine definition for pcontrolg20 : can you please resend a patch serie to 
> add the kernel support and the machine conf file.
the machine configuration for pcontrolg20 is still not in a stable state:
At least the kernel patch is stable, but for the at91bootstrap i have made changes for lowlevel initialization and memory detection which i have to bring in sync with mainline; right now my at91bootstrap patch looks ugly and would be rejected deservedly.
Same is for U-boot. I patched a specific git-revision with a number of additional commands i need for factory testing.
Even worse, the perpetual discussions about kernel relocation/decompression convinced me to evaluate alternatives like barebox.

So my ToDo-list is:
(*) commit kernel.patch
* commit at91bootstrap.patch
* commit U-boot or Barebox patches
* commit conf/machine/pcontrolg20.conf
* commit recipes/pcontrolg20-image.bb

If its ok for you this would be the first commit.

I could commit the pcontrolg20.conf also, but the entries for at91boosttrap and u-boot would be commented out.

Preferred way?

Peter