Hi Albert, > Hi Lukasz, > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:25:37 +0100, Lukasz Majewski > <l.majew...@samsung.com> wrote: > > > Hi Albert, > > > > > Hi Hector, > > > > > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:52:07 +0100, "Palacios, Hector" > > > <hector.palac...@digi.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 02/19/2014 11:16 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:08:03 +0100, Albert ARIBAUD > > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks for pointing out. Now it is perfectly visible :-) > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Inclusion of v2 has been postponed since there was a > > > > >>>>> discussion if we shall allow unaligned access > > > > >>>>> (-mno-unaligned-access flag) at armv7 (after patches > > > > >>>>> posted by Tom). > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> As fair as I can tell, we will keep the current approach > > > > >>>>> so, I think that Tom will be willing to pull this patch > > > > >>>>> (v2) now. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Agreed, but then we should make sure no one has comments > > > > >>>> on V2 that they might have withheld due to the initial > > > > >>>> rejection of V2. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Any comments? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> This patch do fix unaligned access problem on Trats2 > > > > >>> (Exynos4412), when we restore/create GPT, so I would like to > > > > >>> know if there are any new inquires regarding this patch. > > > > >> > > > > >> Does not seem to be, so I will apply V2. > > > > > > > > > > Correction: I would like it to be applied as per current ARM > > > > > alignment policy, but this patch is not ARM per se and is in > > > > > Tom's hands. > > > > > > > > > > Tom, can you apply http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/314717/ ? > > > > > This would by no means close the discussion I opened, and in > > > > > the event of a policy change, the patch could always be > > > > > reverted; meanwhile, it matches our current policy. > > > > > > > > I tested Piotr's patch on i.MX6 (armv7) custom board and it is > > > > working fine without the -mno-unaligned-access flag. > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Hector Palacios <hector.palac...@digi.com> > > > > > > You've just Tested-By-ed your own patch, I think. > > > > Nope. > > > > Patch prepared by Piotr is orthogonal to the one prepared by Hector. > > > > Hector has spotted other mistake at GPT code (made by me). > > Fix for it has been posted a few days ago: > > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/319914/ > > I did not comment on the relationship between patches, I only > commented on the fact that Hector said he has tested Piotr's patch but > sent his Tested-by on his own patch thread, not on Piotr's. To verify > this, look up > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/319649/ > > ... which is Hector's patchwork entry and has his own Tested-by, and > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/314717/ > > ... which is Piotr's patch and does not have Hector's (or > anyone's) Tested-by.
Hmm. I've misunderstood you a bit. Anyway thanks for clarification :-). > > Amicalement, -- Best regards, Lukasz Majewski Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
