Dear Tom Rini, On 11/07/2013 02:31 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:37:24AM +0100, Andreas Bie?mann wrote: >> Hello all together, >> >> On 11/07/2013 09:17 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote: >>> Am 06.11.2013 08:50, schrieb Wolfgang Denk: > [snip] >>>> So when you're once again doing some change that requires touching >>>> files for some othe rboards, you could simply check that database. If >>>> you see that 3 out of the last 5 releases have reported succesful >>>> run-time tests you will probably decide to accept the needed efforts, >>> >>> Hmm.. that works, if you have to touch some (some < 5) boards. But >>> If you have to touch > 5 boards, this gets unhandy... >> >> How about: >> >> MAKEALL --check-boards -s at91 >> >> ;) > > I feel this is the hard part of the problem, and what we're glossing > over. What has to be tested by the board maintainer? What are we going > to leave to their discretion? Will am335x_evm not count if I don't dig > up the NOR cape for it?
for the time being I'd glad to see reports of (un)successful boot with configured bootm command. But I see your point, there is another input vector for the tests. I think this could only be defined on a per board basis. To pick up your example, I think it is worth to know that one tested the am335x_evm to boot via NAND. At least for the maintainer, so he can skip that and just test the NOR booting. Best regards Andreas Bießmann _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot