On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 09:56 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > On 05/17/2014 09:43 AM, Siarhei Siamashka wrote: > > On Fri, 16 May 2014 21:40:07 +0100 > > Ian Campbell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 23:11 +0300, Siarhei Siamashka wrote: > >>>> I think this change is an improvement, but if we do this, we also > >>>> need to upstream it. Ian what is your take on this? IOW are you > >>>> ok with my applying this to the u-boot-sunxi git repo ? > >> > >> While things aren't yet upstream I'm in two minds. > >> > >> Once it does go upstream I think it would pay to be quite strict about > >> accepting stuff into u-boot-sunxi.git. There's not much point going to > >> all the effort upstreaming things if it is just allowed to diverge > >> again, and I don't really want to be forever playing catch up. > > > > As I see it, the 'sunxi' branch at u-boot-sunxi.git is good for > > nothing. It does not even try to be in a workable state for the > > end users (the broken GMAC is telling a lot). > > That is not true, u-boot-sunxi.git should be the default branch > for end users to use. I've not bothered fixing GMAC since I did not > think anyone was actually using network boot. But you're right we should > fix it. Ian, if I'm not mistaken to fix GMAC I should merge the > patches from your ijc/designware branch correct?
There was a v3.1 of one of the patches and I can't remember if I pushed it anywhere -- I'd recommend picking them off the list (or at least confirming that ijc/designware has a v3.1 comment in one of the patches). Ian. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
