[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH, 4th resend] Support uImage files for the AVR32 architecture

Ulf Samuelsson
2006-09-22T17:31:54Z

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Roese" <sr@denx.de>
To: <u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
Cc: "Wolfgang Denk" <wd@denx.de>; "Haavard Skinnemoen" <hskinnemoen@atmel.com>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH,4th resend] Support uImage files for the AVR32 architecture

> Hi Haavard,
>
> On Friday 22 September 2006 14:09, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
>> I've already sent this patch three times to the list, and I have still
>> not gotten any response. It is really important for us to know if you
>> intend to merge this or not; until then, there is no point for us to
>> change the architecture ID as there will still be a possibility that
>> someone else comes along and takes it.
>
> Yes, we intend to merge you patches, but I can't tell you right now if they
> will be accepted as is or if additional changes are required. Wolfgang is on
> vacation and hopefully we will find the time in the not too far future to
> catch up with the pending patches.
>
>> Keeping the current AVR32 architecture ID will mean that our version of
>> busybox will be incompatible with the upstream version because it
>> clashes with the Blackfin ID. And the longer it takes before we get an
>> "official" ID, the harder it will be for us to change it.
>
> Is there already an AVR32 architecture ID? I can't see one. It seems you are
> creating the new ID #17, right? How does it "clash" with the Blackfin ID?
>
>> So if we don't get this issue resolved soon, I see no point in trying
>> to contribute our changes back to you at all. This would be very
>> unfortunate and effectively create an incompatible fork of u-boot with
>> small chances of ever merging in the future.
>
> It could only be a problem, if another architecture ID patch is in our U-Boot
> patch queue, _before_ your patch is incorporated. I don't have an overview
> right now, but find it very unlikely.
>
> Sorry for the inconvenience. Please be assured that we really what to change
> this pending patches dilemma we are in right now.

Since this is quite an important patch you could consider giving it priority.

If there is anything about the patch which you do not like, I am sure
that you can modify this manually - It is very simple.

In fact, you could just decide to assign an architecture Id to the AVR32
and tell Haavard which to use.

Any forthcoming patch from anyone else using that id, then of course has to be rejected.

>
> Best regards,
> Stefan
>

Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson ulf at atmel.com
Atmel Nordic AB
Mail: Box 2033, 174 02 Sundbyberg, Sweden
Visit: Kavalleriv?gen 24, 174 58 Sundbyberg, Sweden
Phone +46 (8) 441 54 22 Fax +46 (8) 441 54 29
GSM +46 (706) 22 44 57

Technical support when I am not available:
AT89 C51 Applications Group: mailto:micro.hotline at nto.atmel.com
AT90 AVR Applications Group: mailto:avr at atmel.com
AT91 ARM Applications Group: mailto:at91support at atmel.com
FPSLIC Application Group: mailto:fpslic at atmel.com
Best AVR link: www.avrfreaks.net