From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hong Xu <hong.xu@atmel.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:07:44 +0800
Subject: [U-Boot] AT91: rework and fixes
In-Reply-To: <1311685150.3635.51.camel@ubuntu>
References: <1310941040-6526-1-git-send-email-wd@denx.de>
	<1310941040-6526-48-git-send-email-wd@denx.de>
	<4E23A001.9060000@atmel.com> <4E23D504.3010001@aribaud.net>
	<4E2D1D9F.1020907@atmel.com> <1311685150.3635.51.camel@ubuntu>
Message-ID: <4E2F72F0.1000906@atmel.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Reinhard,

On 07/26/2011 08:59 PM, Reinhard Meyer wrote:
> Dear Hong Xu,
>  > Hi Albert,
>  >
>  > On 07/18/2011 02:39 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>  > > Hi Eric,
>  > >
>  > > Le 18/07/2011 04:52, Hong Xu a ?crit :
>  > > > Hi Reinhard,
>  > > >
>  > > > It's a pity to see that some of the AT91 boards are planed to be
> removed
>  > > > by Wolfgang.
>  > > >
>  > > > Several weeks ago, the patches for SAM9261/9G10 have got Acks
> from you.
>  > > > See http://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot at lists.denx.de/msg54829.html
>  > > > But I don't know why it's not merged upstream.
>
> Now, an actual at91sam9261_devices.c and at91sam9261.h are on top of
> u-boot-atmel/master.
> If your board patches for az91sam9261-ek still work with that, I can
> apply them again to master.

OK, I'll check and resend the board fix.

>
>  > > >
>  > > > For SAM9RL, the V3 patches have been sent long time ago and was
> pinged.
>  > > > But no response any longer.
>
> I have changes requested there.

You mean the change requests for V3 patches? I never saw them. Is it a 
general comments towards AT91 or specific to V3 patches?

But anyway, I'd like to send the patches again in the coming days.

>
>  > > >
>  > > > The similar stories are also applied for SAM9263 and SAM9M10G45.
>
> Changes requested as well.

Ditto.

[...]
>
> Anyway, for work reasons, there will be no extended vacation this
> summer :(

Sorry to hear this.

> Again, the work flow, as I want it followed, is as such:
>
> 1. convert/fix all SoC specific files for 9263 9g45 etc. to be in line
> and equivalent to the now existing files for 9260 and 9261.
> (Next should be for 9263, we should be looking at existing patches to
> fix that SoC).
> I will NOT accept patches that do not fully implement the name schemes
> laid out in 9260 and 9261.
>
> 2. Fix any boards to use those files AND to use relocation properly.
>
> 3. Make sure those build without warning or errors.
>
> 4. Make sure those boards still "boot" with that u-boot.
>
> 5. When a board has passed those tests (I cannot test point 4) the
> "removal" patch for that board will not be applied.

OK, the SoC fixes for 9263 and 9G45 will come firstly.

Thanks.

BR,
Eric

> Best Regards,
> Reinhard
>