* [U-Boot] [PATCH] arch-mx6: fix MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro to work with MX6 duallite
@ 2016-06-22 10:07 Hannes Schmelzer
2016-07-11 14:42 ` Stefano Babic
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Hannes Schmelzer @ 2016-06-22 10:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
if we build for an i.mx6 (d)ual(l)ite CONFIC_MX6DL we shall use
MX6DL_PAD instead the common MX6_PAD.
Signed-off-by: Hannes Schmelzer <oe5hpm@oevsv.at>
---
arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
index 4b6bb18..3465205 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ enum {
#include "mx6q_pins.h"
#undef MX6_PAD_DECL
#define MX6_PAD_DECL(name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc) \
- MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_,name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
+ MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_, name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
#include "mx6dl_pins.h"
};
#elif defined(CONFIG_MX6Q)
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ enum {
#elif defined(CONFIG_MX6DL) || defined(CONFIG_MX6S)
enum {
#define MX6_PAD_DECL(name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc) \
- MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6_PAD_,name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
+ MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_, name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
#include "mx6dl_pins.h"
};
#elif defined(CONFIG_MX6SL)
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] arch-mx6: fix MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro to work with MX6 duallite
2016-06-22 10:07 [U-Boot] [PATCH] arch-mx6: fix MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro to work with MX6 duallite Hannes Schmelzer
@ 2016-07-11 14:42 ` Stefano Babic
2016-07-11 14:44 ` Otavio Salvador
2016-07-20 7:30 ` Stefano Babic
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Babic @ 2016-07-11 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On 22/06/2016 12:07, Hannes Schmelzer wrote:
> if we build for an i.mx6 (d)ual(l)ite CONFIC_MX6DL we shall use
> MX6DL_PAD instead the common MX6_PAD.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hannes Schmelzer <oe5hpm@oevsv.at>
> ---
>
> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
> index 4b6bb18..3465205 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ enum {
> #include "mx6q_pins.h"
> #undef MX6_PAD_DECL
> #define MX6_PAD_DECL(name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc) \
> - MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_,name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
> + MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_, name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
> #include "mx6dl_pins.h"
> };
> #elif defined(CONFIG_MX6Q)
> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ enum {
> #elif defined(CONFIG_MX6DL) || defined(CONFIG_MX6S)
> enum {
> #define MX6_PAD_DECL(name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc) \
> - MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6_PAD_,name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
> + MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_, name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
> #include "mx6dl_pins.h"
> };
> #elif defined(CONFIG_MX6SL)
>
Applied to u-boot-imx, -next branch, thanks !
Best regards,
Stefano Babic
--
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sbabic at denx.de
=====================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] arch-mx6: fix MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro to work with MX6 duallite
2016-06-22 10:07 [U-Boot] [PATCH] arch-mx6: fix MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro to work with MX6 duallite Hannes Schmelzer
2016-07-11 14:42 ` Stefano Babic
@ 2016-07-11 14:44 ` Otavio Salvador
2016-07-20 7:30 ` Stefano Babic
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Otavio Salvador @ 2016-07-11 14:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Hannes Schmelzer <oe5hpm@oevsv.at> wrote:
> if we build for an i.mx6 (d)ual(l)ite CONFIC_MX6DL we shall use
> MX6DL_PAD instead the common MX6_PAD.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hannes Schmelzer <oe5hpm@oevsv.at>
Please put this for the current release; this is a bugfix and a critical one.
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] arch-mx6: fix MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro to work with MX6 duallite
2016-06-22 10:07 [U-Boot] [PATCH] arch-mx6: fix MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro to work with MX6 duallite Hannes Schmelzer
2016-07-11 14:42 ` Stefano Babic
2016-07-11 14:44 ` Otavio Salvador
@ 2016-07-20 7:30 ` Stefano Babic
2016-07-20 20:51 ` Hannes Schmelzer
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Babic @ 2016-07-20 7:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hi Hannes,
this patch breaks most i.MX6 boards (the not DL) and I revert it. Maybe
I had to ask better before, anyway:
On 22/06/2016 12:07, Hannes Schmelzer wrote:
> if we build for an i.mx6 (d)ual(l)ite CONFIC_MX6DL we shall use
> MX6DL_PAD instead the common MX6_PAD.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hannes Schmelzer <oe5hpm@oevsv.at>
> ---
>
> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
> index 4b6bb18..3465205 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ enum {
> #include "mx6q_pins.h"
> #undef MX6_PAD_DECL
> #define MX6_PAD_DECL(name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc) \
> - MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_,name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
> + MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_, name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
> #include "mx6dl_pins.h"
> };
> #elif defined(CONFIG_MX6Q)
> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ enum {
> #elif defined(CONFIG_MX6DL) || defined(CONFIG_MX6S)
> enum {
> #define MX6_PAD_DECL(name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc) \
> - MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6_PAD_,name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
> + MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_, name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
> #include "mx6dl_pins.h"
> };
Can you better explain the problem you had ? The name is not decisive -
the important thing is that the correct include file with the right
layout is included, that means mx6dl_pins.h. And this was mainlined
since a lot of time.
We have several boards with 6DL into mainline, so I am missing which is
your problem.
Best regards,
Stefano Babic
--
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sbabic at denx.de
=====================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] arch-mx6: fix MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro to work with MX6 duallite
2016-07-20 7:30 ` Stefano Babic
@ 2016-07-20 20:51 ` Hannes Schmelzer
2016-07-21 6:10 ` Hannes Schmelzer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Hannes Schmelzer @ 2016-07-20 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On 07/20/2016 09:30 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
> Hi Hannes,
Hi Stefano,
> this patch breaks most i.MX6 boards (the not DL) and I revert it. Maybe
> I had to ask better before, anyway:
sorry for inconvenience, i should have done more testing on this.
I just tried to compile several i.mx6 boards and found out that I did
not covered the MX6S which are in trouble now.
> On 22/06/2016 12:07, Hannes Schmelzer wrote:
>> if we build for an i.mx6 (d)ual(l)ite CONFIC_MX6DL we shall use
>> MX6DL_PAD instead the common MX6_PAD.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hannes Schmelzer<oe5hpm@oevsv.at>
>> ---
>>
>> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
>> index 4b6bb18..3465205 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
>> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ enum {
>> #include "mx6q_pins.h"
>> #undef MX6_PAD_DECL
>> #define MX6_PAD_DECL(name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc) \
>> - MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_,name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
>> + MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_, name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
>> #include "mx6dl_pins.h"
>> };
>> #elif defined(CONFIG_MX6Q)
>> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ enum {
>> #elif defined(CONFIG_MX6DL) || defined(CONFIG_MX6S)
>> enum {
>> #define MX6_PAD_DECL(name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc) \
>> - MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6_PAD_,name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
>> + MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_, name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
>> #include "mx6dl_pins.h"
>> };
> Can you better explain the problem you had ? The name is not decisive -
> the important thing is that the correct include file with the right
> layout is included, that means mx6dl_pins.h. And this was mainlined
> since a lot of time.
Maybe all the time nobody had to use I2C #4 on an i.mx6 duallite chip,
doing so i encountered this problem.
The name is decisive for sure, have a closer look to the
"MX6_PAD_DECLARE" macro,
In conjunction with the correct include file the prefix used to form the
final register table declaration.
Next the iomux-v3.h is from interest,
the "#define IOMUX_PADS" has dependency on CONFIG_MX6nn, here the
previous definition out from mx6-pins.h is used.
I will send some V2 to address this topic fully, ok?
> We have several boards with 6DL into mainline, so I am missing which is
> your problem.
>
> Best regards,
> Stefano Babic
cheers,
Hannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] arch-mx6: fix MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro to work with MX6 duallite
2016-07-20 20:51 ` Hannes Schmelzer
@ 2016-07-21 6:10 ` Hannes Schmelzer
2016-07-21 8:28 ` Stefano Babic
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Hannes Schmelzer @ 2016-07-21 6:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On 07/20/2016 10:51 PM, Hannes Schmelzer wrote:
> On 07/20/2016 09:30 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
>> Hi Hannes,
> Hi Stefano,
>> this patch breaks most i.MX6 boards (the not DL) and I revert it. Maybe
>> I had to ask better before, anyway:
> sorry for inconvenience, i should have done more testing on this.
> I just tried to compile several i.mx6 boards and found out that I did
> not covered the MX6S which are in trouble now.
>> On 22/06/2016 12:07, Hannes Schmelzer wrote:
>>> if we build for an i.mx6 (d)ual(l)ite CONFIC_MX6DL we shall use
>>> MX6DL_PAD instead the common MX6_PAD.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Hannes Schmelzer<oe5hpm@oevsv.at>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h | 4 ++--
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
>>> b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
>>> index 4b6bb18..3465205 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6-pins.h
>>> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ enum {
>>> #include "mx6q_pins.h"
>>> #undef MX6_PAD_DECL
>>> #define MX6_PAD_DECL(name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc) \
>>> - MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_,name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
>>> + MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_, name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
>>> #include "mx6dl_pins.h"
>>> };
>>> #elif defined(CONFIG_MX6Q)
>>> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ enum {
>>> #elif defined(CONFIG_MX6DL) || defined(CONFIG_MX6S)
>>> enum {
>>> #define MX6_PAD_DECL(name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc) \
>>> - MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6_PAD_,name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
>>> + MX6_PAD_DECLARE(MX6DL_PAD_, name, pco, mc, mm, sio, si, pc),
>>> #include "mx6dl_pins.h"
>>> };
>> Can you better explain the problem you had ? The name is not decisive -
>> the important thing is that the correct include file with the right
>> layout is included, that means mx6dl_pins.h. And this was mainlined
>> since a lot of time.
> Maybe all the time nobody had to use I2C #4 on an i.mx6 duallite chip,
> doing so i encountered this problem.
>
> The name is decisive for sure, have a closer look to the
> "MX6_PAD_DECLARE" macro,
> In conjunction with the correct include file the prefix used to form
> the final register table declaration.
>
> Next the iomux-v3.h is from interest,
> the "#define IOMUX_PADS" has dependency on CONFIG_MX6nn, here the
> previous definition out from mx6-pins.h is used.
>
> I will send some V2 to address this topic fully, ok?
>> We have several boards with 6DL into mainline, so I am missing which is
>> your problem.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Stefano Babic
> cheers,
> Hannes
Just looked around a bit more about this.
Root cause for failing this patch is, that many boards do not use the
'IOMUX_PADS' macro, instead they just directly use the definition out of
"mx6dl_pins.h" for example.
So we get in trouble there if we change the MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro for
having MX6DL pads instead MX6 pads.
At one point of view it would make sense to me changing all boards to
use the IOMUX_PADS macro for accessing pads register, because afterwards
the real accessed register would be fully in dependence of CONFIG_MX6nn.
On the other hand i cannot fully predict every case could happen if we
simply change that with search/replace.
So it would be OK for me to drop this patch and i will use on my board:
MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TX_EN__I2C4_SCL
MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TXD1__I2C4_SDA
instead
IOMUX_PADS(PAD_ENET_TX_EN__I2C4_SCL)
IOMUX_PADS(MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TXD1__I2C4_SDA )
Whats your thinking about this?
cheers,
Hannes
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] arch-mx6: fix MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro to work with MX6 duallite
2016-07-21 6:10 ` Hannes Schmelzer
@ 2016-07-21 8:28 ` Stefano Babic
2016-07-21 19:02 ` Hannes Schmelzer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Stefano Babic @ 2016-07-21 8:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hi Hannes,
On 21/07/2016 08:10, Hannes Schmelzer wrote:
> Just looked around a bit more about this.
> Root cause for failing this patch is, that many boards do not use the
> 'IOMUX_PADS' macro, instead they just directly use the definition out of
> "mx6dl_pins.h" for example.
Both are allowed. IOMUX_PADS *must* be used in case the board supports
multiple variant of the processor (DL, Quad,..). If the board has just
one variant, the MX6 defines from the corresponding header can be used.
> So we get in trouble there if we change the MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro for
> having MX6DL pads instead MX6 pads.
I am not getting where is the trouble, because there are already a lot
of boards using it. Let's see....
>
> At one point of view it would make sense to me changing all boards to
> use the IOMUX_PADS macro for accessing pads register, because afterwards
> the real accessed register would be fully in dependence of CONFIG_MX6nn.
> On the other hand i cannot fully predict every case could happen if we
> simply change that with search/replace.
>
> So it would be OK for me to drop this patch and i will use on my board:
>
> MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TX_EN__I2C4_SCL
> MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TXD1__I2C4_SDA
>
Now I get the point - and yes, there is an exception for I2C in the
pinmux. This was discussed at the beginning when IOMUX_PADS was
introduced and how to support the different layout of the SOC variants.
We agreed to tread differently I2C. This means that a i2c_pads_info
structure must be set for each variant of the SOC that board supports.
With help of the is_cpu_type() macro (or one of this family), the
correct structure is selected and the pinmux can be set.
The right way to do is:
static struct i2c_pads_info i2c_pad = {
.scl = {
.i2c_mode = MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TX_EN__I2C4_SCL | <pull up>,
.gpio_mode = MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TX_EN__GPIO1_IO28 | <..>,
.gp = IMX_GPIO_NR(1, 28)
},
.sda = {
.i2c_mode = MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TXD1__I2C4_SDA | <pull >,
.gpio_mode = MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TXD1__GPIO1_IO29 | <pull>,
.gp = IMX_GPIO_NR(1, 29)
}
};
and then you call setup_i2c() with the structure.
Best regards,
Stefano Babic
--
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sbabic at denx.de
=====================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] arch-mx6: fix MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro to work with MX6 duallite
2016-07-21 8:28 ` Stefano Babic
@ 2016-07-21 19:02 ` Hannes Schmelzer
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Hannes Schmelzer @ 2016-07-21 19:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On 07/21/2016 10:28 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
> Hi Hannes,
Hi Stefano,
>
> On 21/07/2016 08:10, Hannes Schmelzer wrote:
>
>> Just looked around a bit more about this.
>> Root cause for failing this patch is, that many boards do not use the
>> 'IOMUX_PADS' macro, instead they just directly use the definition out of
>> "mx6dl_pins.h" for example.
> Both are allowed. IOMUX_PADS *must* be used in case the board supports
> multiple variant of the processor (DL, Quad,..). If the board has just
> one variant, the MX6 defines from the corresponding header can be used.
>
>> So we get in trouble there if we change the MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro for
>> having MX6DL pads instead MX6 pads.
> I am not getting where is the trouble, because there are already a lot
> of boards using it. Let's see....
>
>> At one point of view it would make sense to me changing all boards to
>> use the IOMUX_PADS macro for accessing pads register, because afterwards
>> the real accessed register would be fully in dependence of CONFIG_MX6nn.
>> On the other hand i cannot fully predict every case could happen if we
>> simply change that with search/replace.
>>
>> So it would be OK for me to drop this patch and i will use on my board:
>>
>> MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TX_EN__I2C4_SCL
>> MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TXD1__I2C4_SDA
>>
> Now I get the point - and yes, there is an exception for I2C in the
> pinmux. This was discussed at the beginning when IOMUX_PADS was
> introduced and how to support the different layout of the SOC variants.
>
> We agreed to tread differently I2C. This means that a i2c_pads_info
> structure must be set for each variant of the SOC that board supports.
> With help of the is_cpu_type() macro (or one of this family), the
> correct structure is selected and the pinmux can be set.
>
> The right way to do is:
>
>
> static struct i2c_pads_info i2c_pad = {
> .scl = {
> .i2c_mode = MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TX_EN__I2C4_SCL | <pull up>,
> .gpio_mode = MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TX_EN__GPIO1_IO28 | <..>,
> .gp = IMX_GPIO_NR(1, 28)
> },
> .sda = {
> .i2c_mode = MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TXD1__I2C4_SDA | <pull >,
> .gpio_mode = MX6DL_PAD_ENET_TXD1__GPIO1_IO29 | <pull>,
> .gp = IMX_GPIO_NR(1, 29)
> }
> };
>
>
> and then you call setup_i2c() with the structure.
Yeah! Now i understand the thinkings behind/around that.
Many thanks for this, i will implement this for my board.
> Best regards,
> Stefano Babic
cheers,
Hannes
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-07-21 19:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-06-22 10:07 [U-Boot] [PATCH] arch-mx6: fix MX6_PAD_DECLARE macro to work with MX6 duallite Hannes Schmelzer
2016-07-11 14:42 ` Stefano Babic
2016-07-11 14:44 ` Otavio Salvador
2016-07-20 7:30 ` Stefano Babic
2016-07-20 20:51 ` Hannes Schmelzer
2016-07-21 6:10 ` Hannes Schmelzer
2016-07-21 8:28 ` Stefano Babic
2016-07-21 19:02 ` Hannes Schmelzer
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.