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 <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net>
> >---
> > 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.
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.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
