[U-Boot] AT91: rework and fixes (was:Re: [PATCH 47/52] ARM: remove broken "at91sam9261ek" /"at91sam9g10ek" boards)

[Reinhard Meyer <u-boot@emk-elektronik.de>]

Dear Hong Xu,
> Hi Albert,
> 
> On 07/18/2011 02:39 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > Le 18/07/2011 04:52, Hong Xu a ?crit :
> >  > Hi Reinhard,
> >  >
> >  > It's a pity to see that some of the AT91 boards are planed to be removed
> >  > by Wolfgang.
> >  >
> >  > Several weeks ago, the patches for SAM9261/9G10 have got Acks from you.
> >  > See http://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot at lists.denx.de/msg54829.html
> >  > But I don't know why it's not merged upstream.

Now, an actual at91sam9261_devices.c and at91sam9261.h are on top of
u-boot-atmel/master.
If your board patches for az91sam9261-ek still work with that, I can
apply them again to master.

> >  >
> >  > For SAM9RL, the V3 patches have been sent long time ago and was pinged.
> >  > But no response any longer.

I have changes requested there.

> >  >
> >  > The similar stories are also applied for SAM9263 and SAM9M10G45.

Changes requested as well.

> >  >
> >  > We of course need the mainline support for all SAM9 boards in U-Boot.
> >  > But it's the time we need your plans/suggestions/NAKs/ACKs to move on.
> >  >
> >  > Thanks.
> >
> > Note: I'll naturally defer the decision of what to make with the AT91
> > boards to Reinhard, and likewise to other ARM custodians for boards the
> > architecture of which falls under their 'jurisdiction'.
> 
> Understand. But it looks like Reinhard has bunch of paid work at hand 
> and he has his vocation in the near future (He mentioned this in an 
> email towards Wolfgang's  [U-Boot] [PATCH 00/52] ARM: remove broken 
> boards). We noticed that there are several AT91 fixes in the mailing 
> list without any response.

This is not true. Most have been commented and changes requested.

> 
> As a suggestion, how about we setup a git branch and collect AT91 
> related patches during Reinhard's busy time and vocation time? If yes, 
> can we ask for `pull request' from you?

I do not think such a "diagonal" approach is desired by anyone.

Anyway, for work reasons, there will be no extended vacation this
summer :(

Again, the work flow, as I want it followed, is as such:

1. convert/fix all SoC specific files for 9263 9g45 etc. to be in line
and equivalent to the now existing files for 9260 and 9261.
(Next should be for 9263, we should be looking at existing patches to
fix that SoC).
I will NOT accept patches that do not fully implement the name schemes
laid out in 9260 and 9261.

2. Fix any boards to use those files AND to use relocation properly.

3. Make sure those build without warning or errors.

4. Make sure those boards still "boot" with that u-boot.

5. When a board has passed those tests (I cannot test point 4) the
"removal" patch for that board will not be applied.

Best Regards,
Reinhard