On 6/23/20 7:24 AM, Bin Meng wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:17 PM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 05:34:34AM -0700, Bin Meng wrote: >> >>> From: Bin Meng <bin.m...@windriver.com> >>> >>> Explicitly pass the "-bios" option to QEMU to run U-Boot, instead >>> of the "-kernel" option, as we know that "-bios" behavior will be >>> changed since QEMU 5.1.0. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bin.m...@windriver.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> >>> bin/travis-ci/conf.qemu-riscv32_na | 2 +- >>> bin/travis-ci/conf.qemu-riscv32_spl_na | 2 +- >>> bin/travis-ci/conf.qemu-riscv64_na | 2 +- >>> bin/travis-ci/conf.qemu-riscv64_spl_na | 2 +- >>> 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> Note that "travis-ci" is really the wrong subject here, it should be >> "u-boot-test-hooks" or something so it's more clear to Stephen that it's >> for him to pick up and not me :) Thanks! >> > > I believe the tag was local to u-boot-test-hooks as I see the same tag > was used in various commits in u-boot-test-hooks repo. Maybe we should > set up a separate ML for u-boot-test-hooks?
I don't think the patch volume is large enough to warrant a whole separate email list. So long as patches are sent to/cc me I'll see them without issue.