[U-Boot-Users] Re: [PATCH] Cleanup cpu/arm920t using SoC

[U-Boot-Users] Re: [PATCH] Cleanup cpu/arm920t using SoC

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <4120DD8B.8040709@imc-berlin.de> you wrote:
> 
> * Patch by Steven Scholz, 16 Aug 2004:
>    - Introducing the concept of SoCs "./cpu/$(CPU)/$(SOC)"
>    - creating subdirs for SoCs ./cpu/arm920t/imx and ./cpu/arm920t/s3c24x0
>    - moving SoC specific code out of cpu/arm920t/ into cpu/arm920t/$(SOC)/
>    - moving drivers/s3c24x0_i2c.c and drivers/serial_imx.c out of drivers/
>      into cpu/arm920t/$(SOC)/

Added, thanks.

Please feel free to go on now with the  next  step  of  cleanup.  And
sorry it took so long.

Viele Gr??e,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd at denx.de
Anyone who isn't confused here doesn't really know what's going on.

[U-Boot-Users] Patch for Cirrus Logic EDB9312

[llandre]

Hi,

here http://www.dave-tech.it/download/misc/sw/edb93xx/u-boot-edb93xx-3 is
available for download a patch for Cirrus Logic EDB93xx.
It has been tested on EDB9312.
This patch is based on current CVS repository so it exploits Steven Scholz's
SoC patch. See the attachment for the CHANGELOG.



Best regards,

llandre

DAVE Electronics System House - R&D Department
web:   http://www.dave-tech.it
email: r&d2 at dave-tech.it
-------------- next part --------------
* Patch by Andrea Marson, Andrea Scian, 12 Oct 2004:
  Added support for Cirrus Logic EDB93xx board. Tested on EDB9312.
  New code organization is based on the Steven Scholz's SoC patch.
  Original port by Adam Bezanson.

[U-Boot-Users] Patch for Cirrus Logic EDB9312

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <6.0.1.1.0.20041012151214.01e803d0@192.168.2.1> you wrote:
>
> here http://www.dave-tech.it/download/misc/sw/edb93xx/u-boot-edb93xx-3 is
> available for download a patch for Cirrus Logic EDB93xx.
> It has been tested on EDB9312.
> This patch is based on current CVS repository so it exploits Steven Scholz's
> SoC patch. See the attachment for the CHANGELOG.

Sorry, but I reject this patch. It violates too many  of  the  Coding
Style  requirements  (C++ comments, trailing white space, no TABs for
indentation, actually TERRIBLE indentation, etc.)

Please cleanup, reformat (using indent etc.) and resubmit.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Life is a game. Money is how we keep score.              - Ted Turner

[U-Boot-Users] Patch for Cirrus Logic EDB9312

[llandre]

> > here http://www.dave-tech.it/download/misc/sw/edb93xx/u-boot-edb93xx-3 is
> > available for download a patch for Cirrus Logic EDB93xx.
> > It has been tested on EDB9312.
> > This patch is based on current CVS repository so it exploits Steven 
> Scholz's
> > SoC patch. See the attachment for the CHANGELOG.
>
>Sorry, but I reject this patch. It violates too many  of  the  Coding
>Style  requirements  (C++ comments, trailing white space, no TABs for
>indentation, actually TERRIBLE indentation, etc.)
>
>Please cleanup, reformat (using indent etc.) and resubmit.

Hi Wolfgang,

to support this board I used several existing files that were
not written following U-Boot coding rules :(
Also I don't have the board anymore.
I had a look at our web site usage statistics and a lot of people downloaded
the patch I released. Anybody can help about cleaning it up?

Generally speaking about patch management, have you ever thought about
using BitKeeper to manage U-Boot repository? Thanks to your great effort and
to the U-Boot developers, its popularity is growing very fast and I think that
patch management task is become really huge. I started working with BitKeeper
because Linux 2.6 and I think it could ease this task a lot.


Best regards,

llandre

DAVE Electronics System House - R&D Department
web:   http://www.dave-tech.it
email: r&d2 at dave-tech.it

[U-Boot-Users] Revision COntrol, Patch Database -- was: Patch for Cirrus Logic EDB9312

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <6.0.1.1.0.20050118091601.01ba8630@192.168.2.1> you wrote:
> 
> Generally speaking about patch management, have you ever thought about
> using BitKeeper to manage U-Boot repository? Thanks to your great effort and

No. U-Boot is a Free Software project, and  we  will  never  make  it
dependent on a proprietary product withj nsty licensing terms.

> to the U-Boot developers, its popularity is growing very fast and I think that
> patch management task is become really huge. I started working with BitKeeper
> because Linux 2.6 and I think it could ease this task a lot.

It could if it was usable. But it ain't. It restricts your freedom in
an unacceptable way. Did you read the BKL license? [It's difficult to
do because it's only readable AFTER installing the product.] Did  you
read  for example section "3. LICENSEE OBLIGATIONS": "(d) No free use
for competitors". What if I happen to hack CVS, subversion or arch or
any other free frevision control system?


But I am perfectly aware that a system with support  for  distributed
repositories  would  be beneficial. We will probably try switching to
arch.


And while we are at it: another thing that would be useful is a patch
database. Any suggestions?


Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
There's no sense in being precise  when  you  don't  even  know  what
you're talking about.                             -- John von Neumann

[U-Boot-Users] Re: Revision COntrol, Patch Database -- was: Patch for Cirrus Logic EDB9312

[llandre]

> > to the U-Boot developers, its popularity is growing very fast and I 
> think that
> > patch management task is become really huge. I started working with 
> BitKeeper
> > because Linux 2.6 and I think it could ease this task a lot.
>
>It could if it was usable. But it ain't. It restricts your freedom in
>an unacceptable way. Did you read the BKL license? [It's difficult to
>do because it's only readable AFTER installing the product.] Did  you
>read  for example section "3. LICENSEE OBLIGATIONS": "(d) No free use
>for competitors".

I see. I agree this is a very good reason to avoid adopting it.

>But I am perfectly aware that a system with support  for  distributed
>repositories  would  be beneficial. We will probably try switching to
>arch.

Great.

>And while we are at it: another thing that would be useful is a patch
>database. Any suggestions?

The system used by www.arm.linux.org.uk seems very powerful. We could ask
Russell about it.



llandre

DAVE Electronics System House - R&D Department
web:   http://www.dave-tech.it
email: r&d2 at dave-tech.it

[U-Boot-Users] Patch for Cirrus Logic EDB9312

[Cliff Brake]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:32:56 +0100, llandre <r&d2@dave-tech.it> wrote:
 
> Generally speaking about patch management, have you ever thought about
> using BitKeeper to manage U-Boot repository? Thanks to your great effort and
> to the U-Boot developers, its popularity is growing very fast and I think that
> patch management task is become really huge. I started working with BitKeeper
> because Linux 2.6 and I think it could ease this task a lot.

I have been using arch w/ U-boot -- seems to work pretty well.  There
is a tla-cvs-sync script that can be used to sync an arch repository
w/ a CVS repository, so this allows me to have my own version control
system (arch) for my projects, but yet easily keep in sync with the
U-boot CVS.  My arch mirror of U-boot is available if anyone is
interested:

http://bec-systems.com/phpwiki/index.php/UbootNotes

Cliff


-- 
=======================
Cliff Brake
http://bec-systems.com

[U-Boot-Users] Patch for Cirrus Logic EDB9312

[Cory Tusar]

llandre wrote:
>> > here 
>> http://www.dave-tech.it/download/misc/sw/edb93xx/u-boot-edb93xx-3 is
>> > available for download a patch for Cirrus Logic EDB93xx.
>> > It has been tested on EDB9312.
>> > This patch is based on current CVS repository so it exploits Steven 
>> Scholz's
>> > SoC patch. See the attachment for the CHANGELOG.
>>
>> Sorry, but I reject this patch. It violates too many  of  the  Coding
>> Style  requirements  (C++ comments, trailing white space, no TABs for
>> indentation, actually TERRIBLE indentation, etc.)
>>
>> Please cleanup, reformat (using indent etc.) and resubmit.
> 
> 
> Hi Wolfgang,
> 
> to support this board I used several existing files that were
> not written following U-Boot coding rules :(
> Also I don't have the board anymore.
> I had a look at our web site usage statistics and a lot of people 
> downloaded
> the patch I released. Anybody can help about cleaning it up?

I'm in the process of cleaning this up, and verifying functionality on 
all EDB93xx variants, as I've got easy access to all of the boards. 
There were several issues I resolved in bringing U-Boot up on EDB9301 
hardware (notably broken ethernet drivers), along with a mess of cruft 
begging to be cleaned out.  Unfortunately this is a side-project of a 
current development effort, and so not something I can commit terribly 
many hours to.

-Cory


-- 
Cory T. Tusar
Embedded Systems Engineer
Videon Central, Inc.
2171 Sandy Drive
State College, PA 16801
(814) 235-1111 x316
(814) 235-1118 fax

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
   Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
     by definition, not smart enough to debug it."  --Brian W. Kernighan

[U-Boot-Users] Revision COntrol, Patch Database -- was: Patch for Cirrus Logic EDB9312

[Jerry Van Baren]

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <6.0.1.1.0.20050118091601.01ba8630@192.168.2.1> you wrote:
> 
>>Generally speaking about patch management, have you ever thought about
>>using BitKeeper to manage U-Boot repository? Thanks to your great effort and
> 
> 
> No. U-Boot is a Free Software project, and  we  will  never  make  it
> dependent on a proprietary product withj nsty licensing terms.
> 
> 
>>to the U-Boot developers, its popularity is growing very fast and I think that
>>patch management task is become really huge. I started working with BitKeeper
>>because Linux 2.6 and I think it could ease this task a lot.
> 
> 
> It could if it was usable. But it ain't. It restricts your freedom in
> an unacceptable way. Did you read the BKL license? [It's difficult to
> do because it's only readable AFTER installing the product.] Did  you
> read  for example section "3. LICENSEE OBLIGATIONS": "(d) No free use
> for competitors". What if I happen to hack CVS, subversion or arch or
> any other free frevision control system?
> 
> 
> But I am perfectly aware that a system with support  for  distributed
> repositories  would  be beneficial. We will probably try switching to
> arch.
> 
> 
> And while we are at it: another thing that would be useful is a patch
> database. Any suggestions?
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Wolfgang Denk
> 

The obvious answer (but not necessarily the correct answer :-) is gforge
   http://gforge.org/
It says it can use subversion for version control as well as cvs.  That 
doesn't get you your distributed repository, however it does make it an 
easier switch.

gvb

[U-Boot-Users] Revision COntrol, Patch Database -- was: Patch for Cirrus Logic EDB9312

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <41ED32F0.3020109@smiths-aerospace.com> you wrote:
>
> The obvious answer (but not necessarily the correct answer :-) is gforge
>    http://gforge.org/
> It says it can use subversion for version control as well as cvs.  That 
> doesn't get you your distributed repository, however it does make it an 
> easier switch.

Subversion is nice, but distributed repositories are essential to me.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
The complexity of software is an essential property, not an  acciden-
tal  one. Hence, descriptions of a software entity that abstract away
its complexity often abstract away its essence.    - Fred Brooks, Jr.

[U-Boot-Users] Revision COntrol, Patch Database

[Jerry Van Baren]

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <41ED32F0.3020109@smiths-aerospace.com> you wrote:
> 
>>The obvious answer (but not necessarily the correct answer :-) is gforge
>>   http://gforge.org/
>>It says it can use subversion for version control as well as cvs.  That 
>>doesn't get you your distributed repository, however it does make it an 
>>easier switch.
> 
> 
> Subversion is nice, but distributed repositories are essential to me.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Wolfgang Denk

Another possibility is Aegis by Peter Miller
   http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/softeng/Aegis/README.html
   http://aegis.sourceforge.net/
I have not used it, but have looked it over several times.  It looks 
intriguing.  It also looks rather more heavyweight than arch.

I was looking at arch a bit, thinking it should be usable with gforge. 
A quick google search showed others thought the same thing, including a 
big thread pointed to in the article "Arch and XMLRPC and BugZilla, 
posted 8 Aug 2003" (getting pretty old):
   http://www.advogato.org/article/694.html
but the links to the discussions are dead.  It also isn't clear what the 
discussion was (since it is MIA), whether it was gforge or gsoap or 
bugzilla or ???

gvb

[U-Boot-Users] Patch for Cirrus Logic EDB9312

[llandre]

> > Generally speaking about patch management, have you ever thought about
> > using BitKeeper to manage U-Boot repository? Thanks to your great 
> effort and
> > to the U-Boot developers, its popularity is growing very fast and I 
> think that
> > patch management task is become really huge. I started working with 
> BitKeeper
> > because Linux 2.6 and I think it could ease this task a lot.
>
>I have been using arch w/ U-boot -- seems to work pretty well.  There
>is a tla-cvs-sync script that can be used to sync an arch repository
>w/ a CVS repository, so this allows me to have my own version control
>system (arch) for my projects, but yet easily keep in sync with the
>U-boot CVS.

It sounds very very interesting.
Thanks for pointing it out!




llandre

DAVE Electronics System House - R&D Department
web:   http://www.dave-tech.it
email: r&d2 at dave-tech.it

[U-Boot-Users] Patch for Cirrus Logic EDB9312

[llandre]

>>I had a look at our web site usage statistics and a lot of people downloaded
>>the patch I released. Anybody can help about cleaning it up?
>
>I'm in the process of cleaning this up, and verifying functionality on all 
>EDB93xx variants, as I've got easy access to all of the boards. There were 
>several issues I resolved in bringing U-Boot up on EDB9301 hardware 
>(notably broken ethernet drivers), along with a mess of cruft begging to 
>be cleaned out.

Great.

>   Unfortunately this is a side-project of a current development effort, 
> and so not something I can commit terribly many hours to.

I see.
Thanks for your help,

llandre

DAVE Electronics System House - R&D Department
web:   http://www.dave-tech.it
email: r&d2 at dave-tech.it

[U-Boot-Users] Re: Revision COntrol, Patch Database -- was: Patch for Cirrus Logic EDB9312

[Catalin Marinas]

Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> writes:
> Subversion is nice, but distributed repositories are essential to
> me.

http://www.gna.org/ might be a good choice. It supports GNU Arch (it's
not hard since it doesn't require a specific server), it has a patch
manager, bug tracker etc. (their web interface is Savane, a
continuation of Savannah).

Using a distributed versions control software would be a real benefit
for the contributors and the best available free tool seems to be GNU
Arch.

Catalin

[U-Boot-Users] Re: Revision COntrol, Patch Database -- was: Patch for Cirrus Logic EDB9312

[Jerry Van Baren]

Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> writes:
> 
>>Subversion is nice, but distributed repositories are essential to
>>me.
> 
> 
> http://www.gna.org/ might be a good choice. It supports GNU Arch (it's
> not hard since it doesn't require a specific server), it has a patch
> manager, bug tracker etc. (their web interface is Savane, a
> continuation of Savannah).
> 
> Using a distributed versions control software would be a real benefit
> for the contributors and the best available free tool seems to be GNU
> Arch.
> 
> Catalin

The Arch, Savane (which has its roots as a fork of SourceForge when they 
went closed source), and http://www.gna.org are good tips.  I've been 
perusing the pages and they look really good.

On the Savane/SourceForge front, currently u-boot is only using 
SourceForge as a public CVS repository.  The SourceForge software is 
MUCH more capable than that.  I would strongly recommend looking at the 
Rockbox project as an example of a very good use of SourceForge's 
capabilities.

Rockbox has a home page at
   http://www.rockbox.org/

An interesting technique is that they take the SourceForge information 
and reformat it for their web pages.  In particular, see their patch 
page which separates the patches by category (catagories are supported 
by SourceForge).  This is very nicely done.
   http://www.rockbox.org/patches.shtml

The underlying Rockbox SourceForge page is:
   http://sourceforge.net/projects/rockbox/
If you click on the "bugs" and "patches" and "feature request" links, 
you will see lots of good stuff (especially patches).  I'm a little 
skeptical about bug reports and feature requests since (in my 
experience) they tend to be filled in and ignored thereafter.

Patch sets, however, are very useful for distributed development.  You 
can upload a new patch (very useful) and have a discussion on the patch 
online (list-based discussion is arguably a better forum).  The patch 
author can retract, update, etc. the patch.  Others can watch the patch 
and apply it to their system if necessary.  Eventually, Wolfgang & Co. 
would apply the patch to the mainline, at which time the patch gets 
closed.  All good stuff.

I don't see any major use of the patch support on the gna.org web site. 
  The only sort of useful example I found is the "eagle usb" project.
   https://gna.org/patch/?group=eagleusb

gvb

[U-Boot-Users] Revision COntrol, Patch Database

[llandre]

>>>The obvious answer (but not necessarily the correct answer :-) is gforge
>>>   http://gforge.org/
>>>It says it can use subversion for version control as well as cvs.  That 
>>>doesn't get you your distributed repository, however it does make it an 
>>>easier switch.
>>
>>Subversion is nice, but distributed repositories are essential to me.
>>Best regards,
>>Wolfgang Denk
>
>Another possibility is Aegis by Peter Miller
>   http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/softeng/Aegis/README.html
>   http://aegis.sourceforge.net/
>I have not used it, but have looked it over several times.  It looks 
>intriguing.  It also looks rather more heavyweight than arch.
>
>I was looking at arch a bit, thinking it should be usable with gforge. A 
>quick google search showed others thought the same thing, including a big 
>thread pointed to in the article "Arch and XMLRPC and BugZilla, posted 8 
>Aug 2003" (getting pretty old):
>   http://www.advogato.org/article/694.html
>but the links to the discussions are dead.  It also isn't clear what the 
>discussion was (since it is MIA), whether it was gforge or gsoap or 
>bugzilla or ???

I found this interesting comparison:
http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/comparison.html



llandre

DAVE Electronics System House - R&D Department
web:   http://www.dave-tech.it
email: r&d2 at dave-tech.it

[U-Boot-Users] Re: Revision COntrol, Patch Database

[Jerry Van Baren]

Hi Wolfgang et al.:

I played quite a bit with arch over the weekend.  So far, I'm very 
impressed with its capabilities and apparent ease of supporting 
distributed version control.  Obviously, I have not used it extensively, 
but I did a fair amount of concept proofing and kept notes.  Attached is 
a HTML web page with my notes.  I don't claim 100% accuracy or coverage, 
but it is a starting place if you or others want to experiment with 
arch.  If you chose to switch to arch, I would be happy to contribute 
this and any more information I learn to your wiki.

Cliff Brake in his email of 2005-01-18 mentions his arch archive as 
well.  His web page pointer is:
   <http://bec-systems.com/phpwiki/index.php/UbootNotes>
He obviously has more experience with arch than me.

gvb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20050124/9c579f00/attachment.html 

[U-Boot-Users] Re: Revision COntrol, Patch Database

[Catalin Marinas]

I've been using GNU Arch extensively with the Linux kernel and I am
happy with what it can do. I have a minor suggestion below:

Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren@smiths-aerospace.com> writes:
> Due to violation of ARCH naming conventions, ARCH has problems
> importing the following U-Boot files
>
> directories:
>
>           board/MAI/bios_emulator/scitech/lib/debug/linux/gcc/glibc.so
> board/MAI/bios_emulator/scitech/lib/debug/linux/gcc/libc.so
> board/MAI/bios_emulator/scitech/lib/release/linux/gcc/glibc.so
> board/MAI/bios_emulator/scitech/lib/release/linux/gcc/libc.so

You should usually import a clean source to avoid adding
compiler-generated files to the repository. Arch tries to ensure some
discipline on what files are kept in the working directory (but this
can be modified to be a simple warning, not an error).

You can ignore them by changing the "unrecognized" regexp in the
{arch}/=tagged-method file and it or by adding .arch-inventory files
in those directories.

Catalin

[U-Boot-Users] Re: Revision COntrol, Patch Database

[Jerry Van Baren]

Catalin Marinas wrote:
> I've been using GNU Arch extensively with the Linux kernel and I am
> happy with what it can do. I have a minor suggestion below:
> 
> Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren@smiths-aerospace.com> writes:
> 
>>Due to violation of ARCH naming conventions, ARCH has problems
>>importing the following U-Boot files
>>
>>directories:
>>
>>          board/MAI/bios_emulator/scitech/lib/debug/linux/gcc/glibc.so
>>board/MAI/bios_emulator/scitech/lib/debug/linux/gcc/libc.so
>>board/MAI/bios_emulator/scitech/lib/release/linux/gcc/glibc.so
>>board/MAI/bios_emulator/scitech/lib/release/linux/gcc/libc.so
> 
> 
> You should usually import a clean source to avoid adding
> compiler-generated files to the repository. Arch tries to ensure some
> discipline on what files are kept in the working directory (but this
> can be modified to be a simple warning, not an error).
> 
> You can ignore them by changing the "unrecognized" regexp in the
> {arch}/=tagged-method file and it or by adding .arch-inventory files
> in those directories.
> 
> Catalin

FWIIW, I did start with clean source.  Those directories are in the 
u-boot tree and contain a readme.txt file that states "This file is just 
to ensure that the directory is created."

I'll have to use your .arch-inventory tip to avoid the problem for my 
purposes, but this isn't going to work for someone that cares about MAI 
bios emulators :-/.

Thanks,
gvb