From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert ARIBAUD Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:38:54 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] part_efi: fix protective_mbr struct allocation In-Reply-To: <20140219152537.749246de@amdc2363> References: <1392216053-10344-1-git-send-email-hector.palacios@digi.com> <20140212165558.100c71cb@amdc2363> <663FBF285582E7408575E1A5C8B86A57ABEA7A4EC9@dor-sms-exch01.digi.com> <20140212173051.04624a91@lilith> <663FBF285582E7408575E1A5C8B86A57ABEA7A4ECA@dor-sms-exch01.digi.com> <20140212214541.792d304c@jawa> <20140213032316.489d3347@lilith> <20140219091904.055671f0@amdc2363> <20140219110803.5b558b91@lilith> <20140219111559.0132e556@lilith> <663FBF285582E7408575E1A5C8B86A57ABEA7A4EDC@dor-sms-exch01.digi.com> <20140219151402.1b356fe4@lilith> <20140219152537.749246de@amdc2363> Message-ID: <20140219153854.6d0da05e@lilith> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Lukasz, On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:25:37 +0100, Lukasz Majewski wrote: > Hi Albert, > > > Hi Hector, > > > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:52:07 +0100, "Palacios, Hector" > > wrote: > > > > > On 02/19/2014 11:16 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > > > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:08:03 +0100, Albert ARIBAUD > > > > > > > >>> Thanks for pointing out. Now it is perfectly visible :-) > > > >>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Inclusion of v2 has been postponed since there was a > > > >>>>> discussion if we shall allow unaligned access > > > >>>>> (-mno-unaligned-access flag) at armv7 (after patches posted > > > >>>>> by Tom). > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> As fair as I can tell, we will keep the current approach so, > > > >>>>> I think that Tom will be willing to pull this patch (v2) now. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Agreed, but then we should make sure no one has comments on V2 > > > >>>> that they might have withheld due to the initial rejection of > > > >>>> V2. > > > >>> > > > >>> Any comments? > > > >>> > > > >>> This patch do fix unaligned access problem on Trats2 > > > >>> (Exynos4412), when we restore/create GPT, so I would like to > > > >>> know if there are any new inquires regarding this patch. > > > >> > > > >> Does not seem to be, so I will apply V2. > > > > > > > > Correction: I would like it to be applied as per current ARM > > > > alignment policy, but this patch is not ARM per se and is in > > > > Tom's hands. > > > > > > > > Tom, can you apply http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/314717/ ? > > > > This would by no means close the discussion I opened, and in the > > > > event of a policy change, the patch could always be reverted; > > > > meanwhile, it matches our current policy. > > > > > > I tested Piotr's patch on i.MX6 (armv7) custom board and it is > > > working fine without the -mno-unaligned-access flag. > > > > > > Tested-by: Hector Palacios > > > > You've just Tested-By-ed your own patch, I think. > > Nope. > > Patch prepared by Piotr is orthogonal to the one prepared by Hector. > > Hector has spotted other mistake at GPT code (made by me). > Fix for it has been posted a few days ago: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/319914/ I did not comment on the relationship between patches, I only commented on the fact that Hector said he has tested Piotr's patch but sent his Tested-by on his own patch thread, not on Piotr's. To verify this, look up http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/319649/ ... which is Hector's patchwork entry and has his own Tested-by, and http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/314717/ ... which is Piotr's patch and does not have Hector's (or anyone's) Tested-by. Amicalement, -- Albert.