[U-Boot] [ARM] Rollback *again* -- 5 patches

[Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>]

Hi Albert,

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:13:16 +0200, Albert ARIBAUD
<albert.u.boot@aribaud.net> wrote:

> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:04:44 -0700, Tom Warren
> <twarren.nvidia@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Albert,
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Albert ARIBAUD
> > <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:59:29 -0700, Tom Warren <TWarren@nvidia.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Albert,
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.u.boot at aribaud.net]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:38 AM
> > > > > To: Stephen Warren
> > > > > Cc: U-Boot; Prafulla Wadaskar; Tom Rini; Tom Warren
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ARM] Rollback *again* -- 5 patches
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Stephen,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:49:45 -0600, Stephen Warren
> > > > > <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 04/11/2013 09:25 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Older toolchain and PPC incompatibilities appeared in the last two
> > > > > > > additions to ToT ARM. To avoid non-bisectability, ToT has been
> > > > > > > rolled back from abbecf4c87 to ae74b65987. This removes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > abbecf4 ARM: Fix __bss_start and __bss_end in linker scripts
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > Stephen, that is an occasion to add your proposal to aad17a2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom Warren as the Tegra maintainer should be taking care of this. I
> > > am
> > > > > > simply pointing out that the currently proposed changes to the SPL
> > > > > > size checking don't fulfil the requirements for Tegra. I don't expect
> > > > > > to have to fix the patches.
> > > > >
> > > > > I did not mean for you to do it, only that there was an opportunity to
> > > do it. :)
> > > >
> > > > Why should I be fixing something I didn't break, and that worked fine
> > > before your change?
> > >
> > > Er...
> > >
> > > Was "I did not mean for you to do it" unclear?
> > >
> > Yes, it was unclear.
> 
> Apologies, then. I only meant to say that we had time to discuss and
> incorporate your solution in the SPL max size patch series since it had

*Stephen's* solution.

Sorry, yesterday was kind of hectic.

> just had to be "unapplied".
> 
> > Tom

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.