Re: [U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms
Hi Marek, [...] It brings me to another question though, would it be possible to get a custodian tree for OpenRISC? CCing Detlev. Sorry for being late here - do we still need/want the OpenRISC tree? Actually I anticipated such a tree nearly five years ago[1] *lol*. Cheers Detlev [1] http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/CustodianGitTrees?rev=1.1 -- I'm sorry that I long ago coined the term objects for this topic because it gets many people to focus on the lesser idea. -- Alan Kay on Object Oriented Programming -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-40 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: d...@denx.de ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms
Hi Marek Vasut, On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Marek Vasut ma...@denx.de wrote: Dear R, Sricharan, Hi Marek Vasut, One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of platforms that are supported. But part of supporting platforms is needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with testing changes and so forth. So first of all, I've just tagged v2012.10-rc1. Please give this at least a basic test on whatever platforms you're able to. Having been testing on OMAP5 and OMAP4 sdp. Will also test on others. Is there any branch where the basic DM driver support patches are pushed to start with ? u-boot-testing.git ... soon Thanks, will watch out. It's there ... branch dm-serial-1 , you can check dm-stringify and dm-lgarray So should these 3 branches be merged to start? Thanks, will start with this for OMAP drivers. Thanks, Sricharan ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms
Dear R, Sricharan, Hi Marek Vasut, On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Marek Vasut ma...@denx.de wrote: Dear R, Sricharan, Hi Marek Vasut, One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of platforms that are supported. But part of supporting platforms is needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with testing changes and so forth. So first of all, I've just tagged v2012.10-rc1. Please give this at least a basic test on whatever platforms you're able to. Having been testing on OMAP5 and OMAP4 sdp. Will also test on others. Is there any branch where the basic DM driver support patches are pushed to start with ? u-boot-testing.git ... soon Thanks, will watch out. It's there ... branch dm-serial-1 , you can check dm-stringify and dm-lgarray So should these 3 branches be merged to start? Thanks, will start with this for OMAP drivers. They're separate, feel free to play Thanks, Sricharan Best regards, Marek Vasut ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 05:50:42AM +0300, Stefan Kristiansson wrote: On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:28:18PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: Hey all, (I had attempted to bcc this to all listed maintainer, but that upset Google greatly. I'll send this out manually instead later). I'd like to put this out here for custodians and maintainers to consider, especially in light of the device model work that's not just coming but has already started being posted. One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of platforms that are supported. But part of supporting platforms is needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with testing changes and so forth. So first of all, I've just tagged v2012.10-rc1. Please give this at least a basic test on whatever platforms you're able to. Second, with this, my next branch is now open and I'd like to start it by asking that platforms that people wish to abandon be removed. With the device model, lots of code will need adjusting and while it's mechanical in ways, it still needs to be run-time tested. And it's changes that someone must do. I know others have suggested adding or better publicizing our to-remove file. But one of the advantages of git is that it's easy to bring platforms back, should someone later wish to bring it back. But this also requires the removal to be done cleanly. All of that said, I would like to stress that if you maintain a platform and you wish to help with the testing and perhaps even the conversion effort, no matter the age of the platform it would be welcome and appreciated. And finally, if everyone really wants to go another direction with old platforms, I'm open to discussion of course. I just want to miminize work done on platforms that aren't active and we don't know if they will come back. This made me realise that there are two old OpenRISC patches floating around that hasn't been applied to mainline. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/142511/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/142510/ Queued this up in patchwork, thanks. -- Tom signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms
Hi Marek Vasut, One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of platforms that are supported. But part of supporting platforms is needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with testing changes and so forth. So first of all, I've just tagged v2012.10-rc1. Please give this at least a basic test on whatever platforms you're able to. Having been testing on OMAP5 and OMAP4 sdp. Will also test on others. Is there any branch where the basic DM driver support patches are pushed to start with ? u-boot-testing.git ... soon Thanks, will watch out. Thanks, Sricharan ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms
Dear R, Sricharan, Hi Marek Vasut, One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of platforms that are supported. But part of supporting platforms is needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with testing changes and so forth. So first of all, I've just tagged v2012.10-rc1. Please give this at least a basic test on whatever platforms you're able to. Having been testing on OMAP5 and OMAP4 sdp. Will also test on others. Is there any branch where the basic DM driver support patches are pushed to start with ? u-boot-testing.git ... soon Thanks, will watch out. It's there ... branch dm-serial-1 , you can check dm-stringify and dm-lgarray Thanks, Sricharan Best regards, Marek Vasut ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:28:18PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: Hey all, (I had attempted to bcc this to all listed maintainer, but that upset Google greatly. I'll send this out manually instead later). I'd like to put this out here for custodians and maintainers to consider, especially in light of the device model work that's not just coming but has already started being posted. One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of platforms that are supported. But part of supporting platforms is needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with testing changes and so forth. So first of all, I've just tagged v2012.10-rc1. Please give this at least a basic test on whatever platforms you're able to. Second, with this, my next branch is now open and I'd like to start it by asking that platforms that people wish to abandon be removed. With the device model, lots of code will need adjusting and while it's mechanical in ways, it still needs to be run-time tested. And it's changes that someone must do. I know others have suggested adding or better publicizing our to-remove file. But one of the advantages of git is that it's easy to bring platforms back, should someone later wish to bring it back. But this also requires the removal to be done cleanly. All of that said, I would like to stress that if you maintain a platform and you wish to help with the testing and perhaps even the conversion effort, no matter the age of the platform it would be welcome and appreciated. And finally, if everyone really wants to go another direction with old platforms, I'm open to discussion of course. I just want to miminize work done on platforms that aren't active and we don't know if they will come back. This made me realise that there are two old OpenRISC patches floating around that hasn't been applied to mainline. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/142511/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/142510/ Apart from that I'm not experiencing any problems on this arch. It brings me to another question though, would it be possible to get a custodian tree for OpenRISC? Stefan ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms
Dear Stefan Kristiansson, On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:28:18PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: Hey all, (I had attempted to bcc this to all listed maintainer, but that upset Google greatly. I'll send this out manually instead later). I'd like to put this out here for custodians and maintainers to consider, especially in light of the device model work that's not just coming but has already started being posted. One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of platforms that are supported. But part of supporting platforms is needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with testing changes and so forth. So first of all, I've just tagged v2012.10-rc1. Please give this at least a basic test on whatever platforms you're able to. Second, with this, my next branch is now open and I'd like to start it by asking that platforms that people wish to abandon be removed. With the device model, lots of code will need adjusting and while it's mechanical in ways, it still needs to be run-time tested. And it's changes that someone must do. I know others have suggested adding or better publicizing our to-remove file. But one of the advantages of git is that it's easy to bring platforms back, should someone later wish to bring it back. But this also requires the removal to be done cleanly. All of that said, I would like to stress that if you maintain a platform and you wish to help with the testing and perhaps even the conversion effort, no matter the age of the platform it would be welcome and appreciated. And finally, if everyone really wants to go another direction with old platforms, I'm open to discussion of course. I just want to miminize work done on platforms that aren't active and we don't know if they will come back. This made me realise that there are two old OpenRISC patches floating around that hasn't been applied to mainline. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/142511/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/142510/ Apart from that I'm not experiencing any problems on this arch. Tom, I think we should apply them please. It brings me to another question though, would it be possible to get a custodian tree for OpenRISC? CCing Detlev. Stefan Best regards, Marek Vasut ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms
Dear R, Sricharan, Hi Tom, [snip] (I had attempted to bcc this to all listed maintainer, but that upset Google greatly. I'll send this out manually instead later). I'd like to put this out here for custodians and maintainers to consider, especially in light of the device model work that's not just coming but has already started being posted. One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of platforms that are supported. But part of supporting platforms is needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with testing changes and so forth. So first of all, I've just tagged v2012.10-rc1. Please give this at least a basic test on whatever platforms you're able to. Having been testing on OMAP5 and OMAP4 sdp. Will also test on others. Is there any branch where the basic DM driver support patches are pushed to start with ? u-boot-testing.git ... soon Thanks, Sricharan ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot Best regards, Marek Vasut ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms
Hi Tom, [snip] (I had attempted to bcc this to all listed maintainer, but that upset Google greatly. I'll send this out manually instead later). I'd like to put this out here for custodians and maintainers to consider, especially in light of the device model work that's not just coming but has already started being posted. One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of platforms that are supported. But part of supporting platforms is needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with testing changes and so forth. So first of all, I've just tagged v2012.10-rc1. Please give this at least a basic test on whatever platforms you're able to. Having been testing on OMAP5 and OMAP4 sdp. Will also test on others. Is there any branch where the basic DM driver support patches are pushed to start with ? Thanks, Sricharan ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/21/12 18:24, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: Hi Tom, On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:28:18 -0700, Tom Rini tr...@ti.com wrote: Hey all, (I had attempted to bcc this to all listed maintainer, but that upset Google greatly. I'll send this out manually instead later). I'd like to put this out here for custodians and maintainers to consider, especially in light of the device model work that's not just coming but has already started being posted. One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of platforms that are supported. But part of supporting platforms is needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with testing changes and so forth. So first of all, I've just tagged v2012.10-rc1. Please give this at least a basic test on whatever platforms you're able to. Just started some minimal testing on edmini (Marvell orion5x). Will be able to test on wireless_space (Marvell kirkwood). Might be able to test on TrimSlice (NVidia Tegra2). Sorry, no TI board handy. :) Second, with this, my next branch is now open and I'd like to start it by asking that platforms that people wish to abandon be removed. With the device model, lots of code will need adjusting and while it's mechanical in ways, it still needs to be run-time tested. And it's changes that someone must do. I know others have suggested adding or better publicizing our to-remove file. But one of the advantages of git is that it's easy to bring platforms back, should someone later wish to bring it back. But this also requires the removal to be done cleanly. All of that said, I would like to stress that if you maintain a platform and you wish to help with the testing and perhaps even the conversion effort, no matter the age of the platform it would be welcome and appreciated. As far as edmini and wireless_space are concerned, I am willing to give it a try. Where should I start? Start by looking over the documents in doc/driver-model/ and talking with Marek things seem odd. - -- Tom -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQYdV+AAoJENk4IS6UOR1WxlsP+wfCswxWw5y8xhHrvb6Xhu/M iqNYaHacLedTuT89GoxfvfLDmxYdSXbZ903s2dGALznYGASREZsJb40esz1IGvHq FfTyAohHSTWQKBKjQLCyOVMOGJwH2OH9lodyh/Bxtyyq46jDEtSK1glPbrgcRoUu zRF4vPc1iAQk0kszU5NU7X0HTJsgsIS6SuK20Pc3tKHrqxpYtOgxPAvwxlBQsGsR d1wOJsRDmsVEjb2bv36FZIj1x5PCfw9jct39buyPrSZXSdbKgzEPgJ7f9dt07n6S VKtjSoK82I2jSHU0Pf8XT81eEzM6qwEmMvtZV8uVQyJtsLZorQpOSLIhnAm7cA0q ukrPU50zRdjHr+F7fz3BnbkQ1Ps9y2O+JuOW6Ljm0+vMKutD8Kju9vGAlK6xH2BB R5MpmwnK10iR68JoxjNO4nWKHmUW5TQCA1E8+ACGEps78nnbG0TDQelAw/ZkM3IV h4uhckszbo2dG0NjGZELYcMq4O8K5PlEjqdOWTS+4Ugb4T+eltoE3q3hMS0JNYWh NGcqL0gxJ9U4NIZr2NhBR9qb7LGCF5zwSkUhjeY9ij2Dc6sgLK81WHsmFcc+fhox tFJCA+x2qwe5TJLuuGsMc1VqxD+rVGnz6U3BJ/kd0xKrnyRpHfUg79mZ7M/7w/9C AmekJdqMz3aUeS7mIjHO =9PeZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] Custodians, Maintainers and old platforms
Hi Tom, On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:28:18 -0700, Tom Rini tr...@ti.com wrote: Hey all, (I had attempted to bcc this to all listed maintainer, but that upset Google greatly. I'll send this out manually instead later). I'd like to put this out here for custodians and maintainers to consider, especially in light of the device model work that's not just coming but has already started being posted. One of the keys to the success of U-Boot has been the number of platforms that are supported. But part of supporting platforms is needing people to volunteer to maintain them long term and help with testing changes and so forth. So first of all, I've just tagged v2012.10-rc1. Please give this at least a basic test on whatever platforms you're able to. Just started some minimal testing on edmini (Marvell orion5x). Will be able to test on wireless_space (Marvell kirkwood). Might be able to test on TrimSlice (NVidia Tegra2). Sorry, no TI board handy. :) Second, with this, my next branch is now open and I'd like to start it by asking that platforms that people wish to abandon be removed. With the device model, lots of code will need adjusting and while it's mechanical in ways, it still needs to be run-time tested. And it's changes that someone must do. I know others have suggested adding or better publicizing our to-remove file. But one of the advantages of git is that it's easy to bring platforms back, should someone later wish to bring it back. But this also requires the removal to be done cleanly. All of that said, I would like to stress that if you maintain a platform and you wish to help with the testing and perhaps even the conversion effort, no matter the age of the platform it would be welcome and appreciated. As far as edmini and wireless_space are concerned, I am willing to give it a try. Where should I start? And finally, if everyone really wants to go another direction with old platforms, I'm open to discussion of course. I just want to miminize work done on platforms that aren't active and we don't know if they will come back. Amicalement, -- Albert. ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
