[U-Boot] common/cmd_io.c: Fix incorrect help for iod/iow

Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
---
 common/cmd_io.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Hi Bin,

On 20 October 2014 02:14, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
> ---
>  common/cmd_io.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/common/cmd_io.c b/common/cmd_io.c
> index eefac36..c59148f 100644
> --- a/common/cmd_io.c
> +++ b/common/cmd_io.c
> @@ -70,8 +70,8 @@ int do_io_iow(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char *const argv[])
>
>  /**************************************************/
>  U_BOOT_CMD(iod, 2, 0, do_io_iod,
> -          "IO space display", "[.b, .w, .l] address [# of objects]");
> +          "IO space display", "[.b, .w, .l] address");
>
>  U_BOOT_CMD(iow, 3, 0, do_io_iow,
> -          "IO space modify (auto-incrementing address)",
> -          "[.b, .w, .l] address");
> +          "IO space modify",
> +          "[.b, .w, .l] address value");

Acked-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

Are you using the coreboot support? What board are you using?

Regards,
SImon

Hi Simon,

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
> Are you using the coreboot support? What board are you using?

Not coreboot, but U-Boot directly booting from reset vector on Intel
Crown Bay board.

Regards,
Bin

Hi Bin,

On 20 October 2014 19:20, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>> Hi Bin,
>>
>> Are you using the coreboot support? What board are you using?
>
> Not coreboot, but U-Boot directly booting from reset vector on Intel
> Crown Bay board.

OK I see - interesting! I talked with Wolfgang at the mini-Summit last
week about a bare x86 port and he seemed keen on the idea. So I've
been taking a look. I was planning to use the Minnowboard Max, but I
don't have one yet (and it may be a long wait) so am looking at
another board.

Are you planning to post patches? I am getting close to posting
patches for booting to a prompt on link. If it helps I've pushed my
WIP tree to u-boot-x86/bare-working. It boots to a prompt but does not
include SMM, display and resource allocation (among other things).

Why are you using U-Boot?

Regards,
Simon

Hi Simon,

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
> OK I see - interesting! I talked with Wolfgang at the mini-Summit last
> week about a bare x86 port and he seemed keen on the idea. So I've
> been taking a look. I was planning to use the Minnowboard Max, but I
> don't have one yet (and it may be a long wait) so am looking at
> another board.

Glad to see we are going to have the bare x86 support again :)

> Are you planning to post patches? I am getting close to posting
> patches for booting to a prompt on link. If it helps I've pushed my
> WIP tree to u-boot-x86/bare-working. It boots to a prompt but does not
> include SMM, display and resource allocation (among other things).

Yes, I would like to post patches when they are ready. Right now my
patches are against the U-Boot v2014.07 release. One issue is that I
am using Intel FSP for the memory and chipset initialization, which I
am not sure if some IP review is needed. But given coreboot already
adopts Intel FSP, I think it would be good.

> Why are you using U-Boot?

Small footprint, extreme fast boot speed, and a user friendly shell.
Just cool for an embedded x86 platform.

Regards,
Bin

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 04:14:53PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:

> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
> Acked-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

Applied to u-boot/master, thanks!