-----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 <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.
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/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=UTij
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
