* [U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets @ 2013-01-08 22:57 Albert ARIBAUD 2013-01-09 13:35 ` Tom Rini 2013-01-09 19:53 ` Scott Wood 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Albert ARIBAUD @ 2013-01-08 22:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot Signed-off-by: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net> --- drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile index 2c3812c..c77c0c4 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile @@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ COBJS-$(CONFIG_TEGRA_NAND) += tegra_nand.o COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_OMAP_GPMC) += omap_gpmc.o COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_PLAT) += nand_plat.o +else # minimal SPL drivers + +COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_FSL_ELBC) += fsl_elbc_spl.o + endif # drivers endif # nand -- 1.7.10.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets 2013-01-08 22:57 [U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets Albert ARIBAUD @ 2013-01-09 13:35 ` Tom Rini 2013-01-09 19:53 ` Scott Wood 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Tom Rini @ 2013-01-09 13:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 11:57:20PM +0100, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Signed-off-by: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net> > --- > drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > index 2c3812c..c77c0c4 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > @@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ COBJS-$(CONFIG_TEGRA_NAND) += tegra_nand.o > COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_OMAP_GPMC) += omap_gpmc.o > COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_PLAT) += nand_plat.o > > +else # minimal SPL drivers > + > +COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_FSL_ELBC) += fsl_elbc_spl.o > + > endif # drivers > endif # nand Applied to u-boot/master, thanks! -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20130109/157fec9b/attachment.pgp> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets 2013-01-08 22:57 [U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets Albert ARIBAUD 2013-01-09 13:35 ` Tom Rini @ 2013-01-09 19:53 ` Scott Wood 2013-01-09 21:38 ` Tom Rini 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Scott Wood @ 2013-01-09 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot On 01/08/2013 04:57:20 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net> > --- > drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > index 2c3812c..c77c0c4 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > @@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ COBJS-$(CONFIG_TEGRA_NAND) += tegra_nand.o > COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_OMAP_GPMC) += omap_gpmc.o > COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_PLAT) += nand_plat.o > > +else # minimal SPL drivers > + > +COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_FSL_ELBC) += fsl_elbc_spl.o > + > endif # drivers > endif # nand So, it looks like this is repairing breakage that came in through a manual merge resolution. Should such merge resolutions not be posted to the list for review? Or was it posted and I missed it? -Scott ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets 2013-01-09 19:53 ` Scott Wood @ 2013-01-09 21:38 ` Tom Rini 2013-01-09 21:56 ` Scott Wood 2013-01-09 22:06 ` Scott Wood 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Tom Rini @ 2013-01-09 21:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 01:53:21PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > On 01/08/2013 04:57:20 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > > > >Signed-off-by: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net> > >--- > > drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > >diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > >index 2c3812c..c77c0c4 100644 > >--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > >+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > >@@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ COBJS-$(CONFIG_TEGRA_NAND) += tegra_nand.o > > COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_OMAP_GPMC) += omap_gpmc.o > > COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_PLAT) += nand_plat.o > > > >+else # minimal SPL drivers > >+ > >+COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_FSL_ELBC) += fsl_elbc_spl.o > >+ > > endif # drivers > > endif # nand > > So, it looks like this is repairing breakage that came in through a > manual merge resolution. Should such merge resolutions not be > posted to the list for review? Or was it posted and I missed it? None of the above. That powerpc was broken twice (once by this, and once by the arm head.S changes) was missed in my build testing. We don't have spelled out rules (that I'm aware of) for manual merges other than asking that someone check that X still works (in this case, am335x NAND). It did, but I didn't read the merge myself was the problem. -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20130109/de2d49b0/attachment.pgp> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets 2013-01-09 21:38 ` Tom Rini @ 2013-01-09 21:56 ` Scott Wood 2013-01-09 22:06 ` Scott Wood 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Scott Wood @ 2013-01-09 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot On 01/09/2013 03:38:22 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 01:53:21PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > > On 01/08/2013 04:57:20 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > > > > > >Signed-off-by: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net> > > >--- > > > drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile | 4 ++++ > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > > >diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > > >index 2c3812c..c77c0c4 100644 > > >--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > > >+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > > >@@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ COBJS-$(CONFIG_TEGRA_NAND) += tegra_nand.o > > > COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_OMAP_GPMC) += omap_gpmc.o > > > COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_PLAT) += nand_plat.o > > > > > >+else # minimal SPL drivers > > >+ > > >+COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_FSL_ELBC) += fsl_elbc_spl.o > > >+ > > > endif # drivers > > > endif # nand > > > > So, it looks like this is repairing breakage that came in through a > > manual merge resolution. Should such merge resolutions not be > > posted to the list for review? Or was it posted and I missed it? > > None of the above. That powerpc was broken twice (once by this, and > once by the arm head.S changes) was missed in my build testing. We > don't have spelled out rules (that I'm aware of) for manual merges > other > than asking that someone check that X still works (in this case, > am335x > NAND). It did, but I didn't read the merge myself was the problem. The NAND Makefile breakage came from commit 79f38777947ac7685e2cef8bd977f954ab198c0e, which is a manual merge by Albert. Why should manual merges be exempt from the rule that all changes get posted to the list? What if next time it's a functional breakage rather than a broken build? I tried repeating the merge between 96764df and 9bd5c1a and the only conflict marker was this: ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD <<<<<<< HEAD ifdef CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SIMPLE COBJS-y += nand_spl_simple.o endif COBJS-$(CONFIG_SPL_NAND_AM33XX_BCH) += am335x_spl_bch.o ifdef CONFIG_SPL_NAND_LOAD COBJS-y += nand_spl_load.o ||||||| merged common ancestors ifdef CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SIMPLE COBJS-y += nand_spl_simple.o endif ifdef CONFIG_SPL_NAND_LOAD COBJS-y += nand_spl_load.o ======= ifdef CONFIG_SPL_NAND_DRIVERS NORMAL_DRIVERS=y >>>>>>> 96764df endif The fsl_elbc_spl.o part was still there, so it wasn't the automatic part of the merge that removed it. If this was simply due to a bad patch in the ARM tree, which specific patch was it? -Scott ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets 2013-01-09 21:38 ` Tom Rini 2013-01-09 21:56 ` Scott Wood @ 2013-01-09 22:06 ` Scott Wood 2013-01-09 22:25 ` Tom Rini 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Scott Wood @ 2013-01-09 22:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot On 01/09/2013 03:38:22 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 01:53:21PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > > On 01/08/2013 04:57:20 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > > > > > >Signed-off-by: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net> > > >--- > > > drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile | 4 ++++ > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > > >diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > > >index 2c3812c..c77c0c4 100644 > > >--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > > >+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > > >@@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ COBJS-$(CONFIG_TEGRA_NAND) += tegra_nand.o > > > COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_OMAP_GPMC) += omap_gpmc.o > > > COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_PLAT) += nand_plat.o > > > > > >+else # minimal SPL drivers > > >+ > > >+COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_FSL_ELBC) += fsl_elbc_spl.o > > >+ > > > endif # drivers > > > endif # nand > > > > So, it looks like this is repairing breakage that came in through a > > manual merge resolution. Should such merge resolutions not be > > posted to the list for review? Or was it posted and I missed it? > > None of the above. That powerpc was broken twice (once by this, and > once by the arm head.S changes) was missed in my build testing. We > don't have spelled out rules (that I'm aware of) for manual merges > other > than asking that someone check that X still works (in this case, > am335x > NAND). It did, but I didn't read the merge myself was the problem. BTW, the conflicting patch was 5846b11e8810f0ecc15e78b383b7709b9b785580 ("am33xx_spl_bch: simple SPL nand loader for AM33XX"). It's a NAND patch, in drivers/mtd/nand specifically. I don't see my ACK on it, and it came in through the ti tree. If we were having custodians sign-off patches as they apply them, you could tell from a glance that a patch is missing either Acked-by or Signed-off-by from a relevant maintainer. -Scott ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets 2013-01-09 22:06 ` Scott Wood @ 2013-01-09 22:25 ` Tom Rini 2013-01-09 22:41 ` Scott Wood 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Tom Rini @ 2013-01-09 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/09/2013 05:06 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On 01/09/2013 03:38:22 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 01:53:21PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote: >>> On 01/08/2013 04:57:20 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net> >>>> --- drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 >>>> insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile >>>> b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile index 2c3812c..c77c0c4 100644 --- >>>> a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile >>>> @@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ COBJS-$(CONFIG_TEGRA_NAND) += >>>> tegra_nand.o COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_OMAP_GPMC) += omap_gpmc.o >>>> COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_PLAT) += nand_plat.o >>>> >>>> +else # minimal SPL drivers + +COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_FSL_ELBC) >>>> += fsl_elbc_spl.o + endif # drivers endif # nand >>> >>> So, it looks like this is repairing breakage that came in >>> through a manual merge resolution. Should such merge >>> resolutions not be posted to the list for review? Or was it >>> posted and I missed it? >> >> None of the above. That powerpc was broken twice (once by this, >> and once by the arm head.S changes) was missed in my build >> testing. We don't have spelled out rules (that I'm aware of) for >> manual merges other than asking that someone check that X still >> works (in this case, am335x NAND). It did, but I didn't read the >> merge myself was the problem. > > BTW, the conflicting patch was > 5846b11e8810f0ecc15e78b383b7709b9b785580 ("am33xx_spl_bch: simple > SPL nand loader for AM33XX"). It's a NAND patch, in > drivers/mtd/nand specifically. I don't see my ACK on it, and it > came in through the ti tree. Putting on my u-boot-ti hat... > If we were having custodians sign-off patches as they apply them, > you could tell from a glance that a patch is missing either > Acked-by or Signed-off-by from a relevant maintainer. Yes, the series was posted Oct 30, and was minor updates to an existing SoC driver (omap_gpmc), some code for new related parts of the SoC (the ELM code, for offloading bch math) and a new SPL shim because there was no other way to get the read correct. I merged it on or around Dec 10 and figured that since you hadn't spoken up in the intervening time, you didn't see anything worth commenting on. - -- Tom -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQ7e5pAAoJENk4IS6UOR1WQbYP+waymmRmbnoFI6j+1tbVwqAP M3ayJER63xo6kwp04cGlRJWyboqOS8IKoSJy3P6FDxyobCcC8SLmxYFcCuzoKxWD cwOLA5GxsY1cYY6JEBLY9Iy7DWh8P1YwMFvZSvSDdnh0NYJ/X4PCS4uO+JEkY4jf +kR01aylSshk11RpGzNB6T3rxgyBIyZPUsEzK1AUSJbV+R+2Opt7zhL1eUQyCRM0 18TySJEmmOBa0R0yMA510lRev0yhlCrw1WRYuXQB+F1cbNIF4G010fUO3W7QAxpe 1USrYdL0TFD65HfK/K08zGmLJO7DbOkOS7wbpVlQQTZKEul4mnyw4gkq/6n36Poz WDccGrAWEBYGARMcdNd/suNAjdpAFRpFFVKW88iKi1mZjRfT8Mm93CaWXY6TAi69 YxSmR91XlTuK5ZTEP4QZviIFvz2BBhuzsuglWnFLwCGGh/SARpKetkKAoFTX5n98 q0OBliai+KoadNy0kgkkx9iknZB5nZ7h5fKmqn035SZpOVbIhX/rfD4MSwBoWYFz ROEFofcFY6IMvrnriKcBcHBy2B97evZTY3rLA5g+9w+192xw3s3G9XniZ4SLve9Q yk1BPiZeu9v/IN2zCTD81f2hDQ+Ch7FNIZcbjv4yAVsiQnYvl1sRm8+wgyIT9kf6 AKXplnA0lkCk/vp35huN =UTij -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets 2013-01-09 22:25 ` Tom Rini @ 2013-01-09 22:41 ` Scott Wood 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Scott Wood @ 2013-01-09 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot On 01/09/2013 04:25:46 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 01/09/2013 05:06 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > BTW, the conflicting patch was > > 5846b11e8810f0ecc15e78b383b7709b9b785580 ("am33xx_spl_bch: simple > > SPL nand loader for AM33XX"). It's a NAND patch, in > > drivers/mtd/nand specifically. I don't see my ACK on it, and it > > came in through the ti tree. > > Putting on my u-boot-ti hat... > > > If we were having custodians sign-off patches as they apply them, > > you could tell from a glance that a patch is missing either > > Acked-by or Signed-off-by from a relevant maintainer. > > Yes, the series was posted Oct 30, and was minor updates to an > existing SoC driver (omap_gpmc), some code for new related parts of > the SoC (the ELM code, for offloading bch math) and a new SPL shim > because there was no other way to get the read correct. I merged it > on or around Dec 10 and figured that since you hadn't spoken up in the > intervening time, you didn't see anything worth commenting on. I get a lot of e-mail. Some of it gets missed. If I haven't responded to something that directly touches drivers/mtd/nand within a reasonable time frame, please remind me rather than assume acquiscence. Regardless, it's the manual merge that definitely needed review. -Scott ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-01-09 22:41 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-01-08 22:57 [U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets Albert ARIBAUD 2013-01-09 13:35 ` Tom Rini 2013-01-09 19:53 ` Scott Wood 2013-01-09 21:38 ` Tom Rini 2013-01-09 21:56 ` Scott Wood 2013-01-09 22:06 ` Scott Wood 2013-01-09 22:25 ` Tom Rini 2013-01-09 22:41 ` Scott Wood
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox