From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Hellstrom Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:41:10 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] please pull u-boot-sparc.git master In-Reply-To: <20080322233716.D446B24A93@gemini.denx.de> References: <20080322233716.D446B24A93@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <47E8D6C6.5080903@gaisler.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hello Wolfgang, You have already replied to the pull request, the pull request was incorrect I'm sorry for that, and the sparc repo has been update since. I have read all your comments on the SPARC patches I sent (and I totally agree with you) and replied to one or two of them. I havn't found the time yet to work with u-boot since I sent the 1..8 patches. So my repository is in the same state as when I sent the patches (not the pull request). I'm currently working with other projects that have a strict deadline, but as soon as I can I will continue my u-boot work. I believe cleaning up the mess (coding style), splitting up the patches and make the fixes mentioned on the list will go quite quick we I start working with it. Best regards, Daniel Hellstrom Wolfgang Denk wrote: >Dear Daniel, > >in message <47D63F7B.2090002@gaisler.com> you wrote: > > >>Please pull sparc. u-boot-sparc.git master. >> >> > >I cannot do that, as the commits in your repo don't correspond to the >patches that have been posted on the mailing list. THis makes it >impossible for me to understand what has been acked or rejected. > > > >>* Changes to Common code for SPARC >>Added SPARC images reqognition to bootm, added SPARC board information >>(bdinfo), >>fixed missleading #error information for CFG_ENV_IS_NOWHERE, SPARc has >>read 64-bit in >>Flash CFI driver. >> common/cmd_bdinfo.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> common/cmd_bootm.c | 2 ++ >> common/cmd_nvedit.c | 2 +- >> drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c | 4 ++++ >> 4 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> > >This summary does not really correspond to what I see in your repo, either ? > > >For example, in your repo I see: > >5497218ac3c3 - SPARC: fixed so that bootm recognize SPARC uboot-Images. > > This was posted on the mailing list as "[PATCH 1/8] SPARC: > bootm SPARC support". > >b38bc5de9ef4 - SPARC: flash_read64 now calls __raw_readq for SPARC. > > This was posted on the mailing list as "[PATCH 2/8] SPARC: > SPARC cfi-flash support for 64-bit reads". > > I sent a review comment to this patch, which you did not > follow up, and you didn't fix the code either. > > Sorry, this is not the way things are supposed to work. > > And by the way: you must noch check in this patch yourself. > You gotta run this through the CFI custodian. > >etc. etc. > > >I don't have the time to clean up this mess. Sorry, but please follow >up the feedback to your patches on the mailing list first, get them >through the other custodians where needed, and then reset your >repository so it matches the (cleaned up) patches on the mailing >list. > > >Sorry. > >Best regards, > >Wolfgang Denk > > >