On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 09:25:25AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 14:53, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 02:44:12PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 14:31, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 02:26:39PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 14:06, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 01:06:25PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > This series adds a cover-coverage check to CI for Binman. The > > > > > > > iMX8 tests > > > > > > > are still not completed, so a work-around is included for those. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few fixes are included for some other problems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jiaxun Yang (1): > > > > > > > binman: Workaround lz4 cli padding in test cases > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simon Glass (6): > > > > > > > binman: Exclude dist-packages and site-packages > > > > > > > binman: Drop GetRootSkipAtStart() > > > > > > > binman: fit: Drop unused code > > > > > > > binman: Drop algo check in CheckSetHashValue() > > > > > > > binman: Workaround missing test coverage > > > > > > > CI: Run code-coverage test for Binman > > > > > > > > > > > > While we likely need Jiaxun's fix in order to be able to update to > > > > > > Ubuntu 24.04, the series itself doesn't apply to -next, please > > > > > > rebase if > > > > > > you intend for this to be in mainline, thanks. > > > > > > > > > > OK, would you able to pick this series up? > > > > > > > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=444576 > > > > > > > > It also doesn't apply. You should really put together a PR, against > > > > next. > > > > > > Oh, it needs another patch anyway. I'll send a v2. Once that is in I > > > can rework this one. > > > > Again, it would be helpful if you would send a PR and always base your > > patches on the appropriate upstream branch. > > I understand that, and I'm happy to rebase / resend when you are ready > to apply. I'd like to keep the diff as small as we can. But I don't > think it should hold up reviews, otherwise we're just going to diverge > further. When you reject patches for your tree I typically apply them > to my tree in the hope that they might find favour in future.
I think you've got this backwards still. > For the skip-at-start series I sent a series, which you have seen. Yes, and what blocked them to start with is they defaulted to your tree and not mainline. > Speaking of patches, the PXE series seems to have got lost. It is > 'changes requested' but I'm not sure what changes are needed. The changes requested was that it breaks lwIP + tftp. You asked that I ignore that since it wasn't failing in public CI, I said it was failing in my CI. I then noticed that it should have failed in public CI (and likely was on Azure, but that's often overloaded enough I cancel runs when I see failures elsewhere). So I then fixed public CI so that the lwIP platforms there too should fail. > I also just found the membuf thing was never applied. Was that the one where Rasmus asked you to do it differently? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
