From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 17:25:46 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets In-Reply-To: <1357769197.18196.4@snotra> References: <1357769197.18196.4@snotra> Message-ID: <50EDEE6A.7080406@ti.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/09/2013 05:06 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On 01/09/2013 03:38:22 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 01:53:21PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote: >>> On 01/08/2013 04:57:20 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Albert ARIBAUD >>>> --- drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 >>>> insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile >>>> b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile index 2c3812c..c77c0c4 100644 --- >>>> a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile >>>> @@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ COBJS-$(CONFIG_TEGRA_NAND) += >>>> tegra_nand.o COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_OMAP_GPMC) += omap_gpmc.o >>>> COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_PLAT) += nand_plat.o >>>> >>>> +else # minimal SPL drivers + +COBJS-$(CONFIG_NAND_FSL_ELBC) >>>> += fsl_elbc_spl.o + endif # drivers endif # nand >>> >>> So, it looks like this is repairing breakage that came in >>> through a manual merge resolution. Should such merge >>> resolutions not be posted to the list for review? Or was it >>> posted and I missed it? >> >> None of the above. That powerpc was broken twice (once by this, >> and once by the arm head.S changes) was missed in my build >> testing. We don't have spelled out rules (that I'm aware of) for >> manual merges other than asking that someone check that X still >> works (in this case, am335x NAND). It did, but I didn't read the >> merge myself was the problem. > > BTW, the conflicting patch was > 5846b11e8810f0ecc15e78b383b7709b9b785580 ("am33xx_spl_bch: simple > SPL nand loader for AM33XX"). It's a NAND patch, in > drivers/mtd/nand specifically. I don't see my ACK on it, and it > came in through the ti tree. Putting on my u-boot-ti hat... > If we were having custodians sign-off patches as they apply them, > you could tell from a glance that a patch is missing either > Acked-by or Signed-off-by from a relevant maintainer. Yes, the series was posted Oct 30, and was minor updates to an existing SoC driver (omap_gpmc), some code for new related parts of the SoC (the ELM code, for offloading bch math) and a new SPL shim because there was no other way to get the read correct. I merged it on or around Dec 10 and figured that since you hadn't spoken up in the intervening time, you didn't see anything worth commenting on. - -- Tom -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQ7e5pAAoJENk4IS6UOR1WQbYP+waymmRmbnoFI6j+1tbVwqAP M3ayJER63xo6kwp04cGlRJWyboqOS8IKoSJy3P6FDxyobCcC8SLmxYFcCuzoKxWD cwOLA5GxsY1cYY6JEBLY9Iy7DWh8P1YwMFvZSvSDdnh0NYJ/X4PCS4uO+JEkY4jf +kR01aylSshk11RpGzNB6T3rxgyBIyZPUsEzK1AUSJbV+R+2Opt7zhL1eUQyCRM0 18TySJEmmOBa0R0yMA510lRev0yhlCrw1WRYuXQB+F1cbNIF4G010fUO3W7QAxpe 1USrYdL0TFD65HfK/K08zGmLJO7DbOkOS7wbpVlQQTZKEul4mnyw4gkq/6n36Poz WDccGrAWEBYGARMcdNd/suNAjdpAFRpFFVKW88iKi1mZjRfT8Mm93CaWXY6TAi69 YxSmR91XlTuK5ZTEP4QZviIFvz2BBhuzsuglWnFLwCGGh/SARpKetkKAoFTX5n98 q0OBliai+KoadNy0kgkkx9iknZB5nZ7h5fKmqn035SZpOVbIhX/rfD4MSwBoWYFz ROEFofcFY6IMvrnriKcBcHBy2B97evZTY3rLA5g+9w+192xw3s3G9XniZ4SLve9Q yk1BPiZeu9v/IN2zCTD81f2hDQ+Ch7FNIZcbjv4yAVsiQnYvl1sRm8+wgyIT9kf6 AKXplnA0lkCk/vp35huN =UTij -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----