From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 09:24:25 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/7] ARM: specify ZRELADDR for ARCH_TEGRA In-Reply-To: <20100908220710.GA9859@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20100903095504.GC13643@pengutronix.de> <1283507818-1573-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <20100903190155.GE17152@pengutronix.de> <20100903192329.GB29821@pengutronix.de> <20100908091113.GB29914@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20100908115609.GA32659@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20100908121634.GD1614@pengutronix.de> <20100908220710.GA9859@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20100909072425.GA1828@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello Russell, On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 11:07:10PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 02:16:34PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > > Hello Russell, > > > > On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 12:56:10PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:23:29PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 12:19:26PM -0700, Erik Gilling wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Uwe Kleine-K?nig > > > > > > > (hmm, I thought that patches that touch common files like > > > > > > > arch/arm/Kconfig should go via rmk?!) > > > > > > > > > > > > I looked and saw that others (specifically samsung) had submitted this > > > > > > fix directly to Linus. I'm still learning the ropes here and am happy > > > > > > to hear some clarification either way. > > > > > > > > > > Note that just me wondering if it's right doesn't necessarily means it's > > > > > not. Russell, can you comment? Is it trivial enough and obviously only > > > > > tegra related that it's OK? > > > > > > > > The problem happens when there's related changes already in others git > > > > trees which clash or conflict with those changes. > > > > > > > > This whole CONFIG_ZRELADDR thing seems like a step backwards towards a > > > > situation where we will get conflicts with multiple changes - but without > > > > gaining anything substantial in moving away from Makefile.boot. > > > > > > > > Unless someone can come up with a real justification for CONFIG_ZRELADDR > > > > I'm mindful to revert it. (But - if people have sent these changes to > > > > Linus already, that's going to make reverting it a lot harder.) > > > > > > This is what I'm considering committing to sort out this ZRELADDR mess - > > > it gives people who want AUTO_ZRELADDR their pie, while allowing us to > > > keep the proven reliability of original method of handling ZRELADDR. > > Would be OK for me. We might have to fix up some machines though. > > Any ideas what needs to be fixed? I thought that there may be platforms that don't have a specification of zreladdr-y anymore in Makefile.boot. Maybe the Tegra-stuff that Linus should pull removes it. Other than that I'd check s3c. The rest should be OK. > And is that an acked-by ? yeah, you can take it as such. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |