On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 03:49:57PM +0200, Eugen Hristev wrote: > On 11/17/23 15:46, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 03:45:02PM +0200, Eugen Hristev wrote: > > > On 11/17/23 15:40, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > On Sat, 04 Nov 2023 22:27:42 -0400, Sean Anderson wrote: > > > > > > > > > Several AT91 boards are quite close to their SPL size limit. For > > > > > example, > > > > > sama5d27_wlsom1_ek_mmc is just 173 bytes short of its limit and > > > > > doesn't > > > > > even fit with older GCCs. > > > > > > > > > > All AT91 processors should have thumb support. Enable > > > > > SYS_THUMB_BUILD. This > > > > > shrinks SPL by around 30%. > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Applied to u-boot/next, thanks! > > > > > > > > > > so I'd assume that it would go through at91 tree. > > > > Ah, sorry. Since it was blocking two other series from coming in and you > > had gotten it tested I had assumed I could pull it to -next now to > > unblock that work. > > This is yet another time at91 patches get applied directly. Maybe you do not > really need an at91 maintainer ?
U-Boot does not tend to have the strict sub-tree breakdown that the kernel does. Given what happened last time I was hoping that reaching out and then that you were able to have the changes tested would be sufficient for changes going to -next, rather than the current release. In future I will just wait for changes to come via the at91 tree, like I do for some other areas where the overall custodian prefers to have a more strict policy. Sorry. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature