On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 06:10:15AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 11:42:35AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > >> > >>> This series adds generic board support to sandbox and switches to use this > >>> always. > >>> > >>> With sandbox it was noticed that turning CONFIG_SYS_GENERIC_BOARD off > >>> can cause a build failure if a previous autoconf.mk exists which indicates > >>> that generic board is not supported, so a patch is provided to fix this. > >>> > >>> It is useful to convert a pointer into an 'address' in the sandbox RAM > >>> buffer - the opposite of map_sysmem(). This is added in this series and > >>> used in several places. > >>> > >>> With sandbox it is easier to read a file from the host than to use the > >>> CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE option, since this option requires knowledge of the > >>> executable image structure which is not really appropriate on the host > >>> system. A new CONFIG_OF_HOSTFILE provides this. > >>> > >>> A few related FDT changes are included in this series also. > >>> > >>> The -c option is enhanced to support passing entire scripts to sandbox. > >>> This is useful when writing non-trivial test code. > >>> > >>> Most of these patches were previously submitted as part of the verified > >>> boot effort. This series collects the independent sandbox-related patches > >>> together to make it easier to review. THe whole series is marked as > >>> version 3 for this reason. > >> > >> For the series, > >> Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> > >> > >> And I'd say 3/4/5 should be squashed into one patch, but it's your arch > >> so I'l defer if you think it adds bisect value or similar to do it in > >> that manner. > > > > I did that so that it could be kind-of an example of how this can be > > done for an arch, given that I am not planning to convert the rest. By > > removing the dead code in a separate step it seemed a bit clearer to > > me. > > > > But it's fine either way - I will squash it and resend. > > > I have put this series in patchwork as: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/bundle/sjg/sandbox/
This has now been applied to u-boot/master, thanks! > and below is a pull request if you want to take that instead. > > I did not go through and add your Reviewed-by to each patch. Am I > supposed to do that? No, that pain is supposed to help spur us into improving patchwork or the new tool we talked about back at LSM. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
