[U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets

[U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets

[Albert ARIBAUD]

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

[U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets

[Tom Rini]

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>

[U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets

[Scott Wood]

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

[U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets

[Tom Rini]

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>

[U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets

[Scott Wood]

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

[U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets

[Scott Wood]

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

[U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets

[Tom Rini]

-----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/
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=UTij
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets

[Scott Wood]

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