From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 13:17:58 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [SoCFPGA] next steps In-Reply-To: <5434FCB0.8050000@monstr.eu> References: <201410071445.50854.marex@denx.de> <5434FCB0.8050000@monstr.eu> Message-ID: <20141008111758.GA32351@amd> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Wed 2014-10-08 10:58:24, Michal Simek wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/07/2014 02:45 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > > Hey, > > > > given that we now have most of the u-boot socfpga stuff in mainline, I decided > > it would be a good idea to list what we're still missing and we should also > > decide how to move on now. > > > > First thing I should probably clarify is the late acceptance of the socfpga > > patches. This is certainly not something we do regularly and is one of the > > worst possible practices to do, but this time it felt rather important to get > > the platform in shape, so this exception happened. Furthermore, all of the code > > in u-boot-socfpga should be based on u-boot-arm and should be submitted through > > the u-boot-arm repository, not directly to u-boot . > > Platform was in this shape for a while that's why I can't see the reason why this happen. > > Tom: Does it mean that every platform which is not in good shape can go directly to the mainline > in any time? It is definitely something which is good to know. Well, the platform was in such a wrong shape that it would be hard to cause regressions, and code was self-contained enough that it would not break anything. I'm not a Tom, but it makes sense to me. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html