[U-Boot] U-Boot panasonic repo

Marek Vasut
2014-09-18T07:27:35Z

On Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 07:18:00 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Michal,

Hi,

> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 06:56:04 +0200
>
> Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 09/11/2014 05:09 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 01:33:20 +0200
> > >
> > > Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >> I'd be interested in maintaining u-boot-socfpga repository. So far, we
> > >> don't have a repo for this platform and there is a large flurry of
> > >> patches flying around without any kind of central point for them. I'd
> > >> like to get your formal consent for starting this and if you agree,
> > >> I'd start sending PR to Albert once the repo is in place.
> > >
> > > Me too. I'd like to own u-boot-uniphier to collect
> > > Panasonic-SoC-specific changes.
> > >
> > > That would be faster and would not disturb Albert.
> >
> > I am not sure if you need to have separate repo to work like this.
> > I am keeping zynq patches in my microblaze repo and sending pull request
> > to Albert (or Tom now) and there is no problem with that.
>
> The point is that you collect Zynq-specific patches in your own place by
> yourself and then send a pull-req to Albert or Tom, right?
>
> It does not matter whether it is a separate u-boot-zynq repo or
> u-boot-microbraze/zynq branch.
>
>
> I have sent the first series to add the core support of Panasonic SoCs
> and boards (but it is taking much longer than I have expected)
> and then I am planning to send more features and boards in the next phase.
>
>
> What's the difference between what I want to do for Panasonic SoCs
> and what you usually do for Zynq SoCs?

[...]

I fully support that we should have a repo for the panasonic socs, it's
pointless to load Albert by making him apply patches by hand and you have
proven numerous times that you do know what you're doing. I really see no
blocker for doing this.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut