[U-Boot-Users] Pull request u-boot-blackfin.git

[Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>]

On Saturday 23 February 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > That's why we do incremental improvements so that you can separate the
> > > fixes from the other stuff and submit them even if there isn't a merge
> > > window open.
> >
> > it's already been done
>
> Then how come you're still trying to push 400k changesets outside the
> merge window?

as i said, i find the merge window irrelevant to Blackfin as until i'm done 
merging the external fork back into mainline.  Wolfgang disagrees which means 
the process of getting Blackfin working is delayed.

> > my understanding was that all commands go in common/.  there's plenty of
> > arch-specific commands in there already.
>
> I still think it's wrong...although if there's an existing consensus
> that all commands go under common/, I'm not going to argue further
> against it.

i'd agree as i used to put Blackfin specific commands in lib_blackfin/.  but i 
figured folding back might as well go the currently accepted route.  doesnt 
matter to me one way or the other.

> > > Second, the SPI driver that broke the tree for almost four weeks was
> > > optional and ppc-specific. Have you run tests on all architectures so
> > > that you can be 100% sure that you're not breaking anything this late
> > > in the release cycle?
> >
> > i make my things conditionally compiled (see the Makefile).  so yes, i'm
> > 100% sure i'm not breaking anyone.  if you add the CONFIG_xxx to your
> > board config, well that's your fault ;).
>
> Famous last words ;)
>
> I take it you're absolutely sure that the new CONFIG_xxx symbols aren't
> already being used anywhere?

grep says only Blackfin

> > > Your tree touches common code
> >
> > Blackfin-specific pieces of common code ... there's a difference
>
> Isn't that a contradiction?

no ...

> If it's blackfin-specific, it can't really be common, can it?

i'm just working with how u-boot is designed.  u-boot has common code that 
has '#ifdef CONFIG_<ARCH>' and that is where the changes for Blackfin are.

> And are you sure that the commands cannot be reworked to be usable on
> other architectures as well? That sort of thing might come out of a
> review, you know...

unless some other architecture is designing cache tables the same way as 
Blackfin, or designing their boot process to use the same exact file format 
that the Blackfin uses, then i doubt it's useful to anyone else.

> > > you're asking for it to be merged
> > > without any review at all. I don't think that's a good idea.
> >
> > i'm asking for the Blackfin pieces to be merged regardless of "merge
> > window". i'm making no requests wrt review.  Wolfgang wants it reviewed
> > first -- i'm fine with that.  complaining that Blackfin changes are going
> > in that arent "pure fixes" i dont care about (right now).
>
> Ok, I'm not all that concerned about the Blackfin stuff. But I think
> that, at a minimum, the stuff under common/ and drivers/ should be
> posted for review, and the stuff under driver/net should preferably go
> in through the Networking custodian.

i plan on taking them out of the public repo and posting them for review
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20080223/ca149883/attachment.pgp