From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 15:56:07 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets In-Reply-To: <20130109213822.GC5802@bill-the-cat> (from trini@ti.com on Wed Jan 9 15:38:22 2013) Message-ID: <1357768567.18196.3@snotra> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de 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 > > >--- > > > 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