From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:26:17 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] svn commit: trunk/buildroot/target/u-boot/2009.01-rc1 In-Reply-To: <1231255007.32308.107.camel@elrond.atmel.com> (Ulf Samuelsson's message of "Tue\, 06 Jan 2009 16\:16\:47 +0100") References: <20090103000614.1DC5F769FA@busybox.osuosl.org> <87mye4qz4d.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <1231255007.32308.107.camel@elrond.atmel.com> Message-ID: <874p0cpiau.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Ulf" == Ulf Samuelsson writes: Hi, Ulf> I discovered I made a mistake and checked in the Ulf> 1.3.4 patch so it will be updated later today Ulf> The original is part of the atmel 1.3.4 patch freom www.linux4sam.org Why is that not in mainline U-Boot? Ulf> ?There will be some other fixes due to the CFG->CONFIG(_SYS) Yes, that's what I mentioned last week. This again will complicate stuff when we're supporting 3+ U-Boot versions. Ulf> I have tested the new patches to build for all possible AT91 targets Ulf> in buildroot as well as for a PowerPC target. Ulf> Generally on patches to u-boot: Ulf> The AT91 team got zero response from the U-Boot during 2003-2005 Ulf> so they dropped all attempts to submit new stuff. They just have to try again like the rest of us, or maybe ping wdenx on irc. I know he can be a pain, but that's his job. Ulf> After it was decided to split the responsibilities up Ulf> to several people, the submission process has improved a lot, Ulf> so the AT91 team started to be interested again last year. Ulf> The board support for AT91 processors has improved. Ulf> The AT91RM9200 has less priority on support from the product line Ulf> and has therefore not been submitted, even if patches Ulf> has been available for a long time. Ulf> Currently the merge window is closed, but I expect Ulf> to submit the board support patches and some of the Ulf> new commands end of January. Ok, please do so. There's afaik nothing stopping you from submitting patches now so they can be integrated by the arm/at91 subtree maintainer. Ulf> The factory default command relies heavily on Ulf> the buildroot configuration, so it may make less Ulf> sense to include that in the main u-boot trunk. What's the point of it? Is it any different than simply erasing the environment and resetting the board? I don't like us carrying feature patches in buildroot. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard