From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rmallon@gmail.com (Ryan Mallon) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:09:14 +1100 Subject: [GIT PULL] DEBUG_LL platform updates for 3.2 In-Reply-To: References: <20110928103815.GA8344@e102144-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <2414781.rlNqTThJUN@wuerfel> <1837446.fiK2eIOO53@wuerfel> <20111013082836.GG21648@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <4E976F9A.80203@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 14/10/11 00:39, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:30:11AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Tuesday 11 October 2011 20:03:38 Nicolas Pitre wrote: >>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've stuck them into the arm-soc tree for now, so we get linux-next >>>>> coverage, but I won't send them to Linus this way because then we >>>>> would get the same commits twice in the history. >>>> >>>> Could you please do the same with the following: >>>> >>>> git://git.linaro.org/people/nico/linux.git mach_memory_h >>>> >>>> Russell pulled it at some point, and dropped it due to concerns about >>>> repeated conflict resolutions (or so I presume). I just did a test >>>> merge between your for-next branch and the above and that looked trivial >>>> enough. >>> >>> Ok, done. >> >> Bypassing maintainers stinks - especially when there are unaddressed >> comments outstanding. Nicolas has "simplified" my objections in this >> request for you to pull - and has completely ignored the problem that >> it breaks ZBOOT_ROM by deleting the zreladdr definitions on EP93xx >> with no way for that to be provided. > > I also told you that EP93xx doesn't use ZBOOT_ROM anywhere, and that > this was approved by the EP93xx maintainers. As the less active of the two EP93xx maintainers I didn't agree to this. I don't know if Hartley did, but I can't find anything from him in a quick search of the list. I have Cc'ed him. I don't have time to follow this issue in depth, but from my vague understanding ZBOOT_ROM is unlikely to be used on EP93xx, but still _possible_ to use. Therefore we should not be removing support for ZBOOT_ROM on EP93xx in case there are some users out there. ~Ryan