From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nicolas.pitre@linaro.org (Nicolas Pitre) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 22:32:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [GIT PULL] DEBUG_LL platform updates for 3.2 In-Reply-To: <4E976F9A.80203@gmail.com> References: <20110928103815.GA8344@e102144-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <2414781.rlNqTThJUN@wuerfel> <1837446.fiK2eIOO53@wuerfel> <20111013082836.GG21648@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4E976F9A.80203@gmail.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Ryan Mallon wrote: > 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. See http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/124151 Granted, while he agreed to the removal of the zreladdr definitions, reading this again he didn't _explicitly_ agree to the disabling of ZBOOT_ROM. I didn't mention it either, so let's put that on a miscommunication on my part. > 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. No worry, I've now excluded EP93xx from my series. My intention never was to permanently remove ZBOOT_ROM support. But because of the EP93xx memory peculiarities, it will have to wait until the ZBOOT_ROM config is moved away from zreladdr. That means you won't be able to have a single zImage for all the EP93xx boards with different memory banks just yet. Nicolas