On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Marek Vasut <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 12:30:00 AM, Tom Rini wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 12:00:05AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >> > On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 11:21:51 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >> > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:07:30PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >> > > > On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 08:33:57 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >> > > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 06:22:10PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >> > > > > > On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 06:18:23 PM, Stefano Babic wrote: >> > > > > > > On 24/01/2016 18:11, Marek Vasut wrote: >> > > > > > > > It is not clear when the wait_for_bit() will be applied, I am >> > > > > > > > certain there will be another round for so. I do not want to >> > > > > > > > wait for it and I don't see a reason why those patches should >> > > > > > > > block this if the conversion can be done afterward. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Just wait for a while - if it takes too much, I reconsider to >> > > > > > > apply this first and factorize wait_for_bit() in a follow-up >> > > > > > > patch. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I have waited for over a month and I fail to see a reason why >> > > > > > patches which will be applied at uncertain point in the future >> > > > > > shall block this patchset. The wait_for_bit() can be removed by >> > > > > > a subsequent patch, it is already pulled out explicitly in the >> > > > > > code, so I don't see a problem with applying this. >> > > > > >> > > > > Did I miss something or isn't v4 of wait_for_bit good to go? >> > > > >> > > > I don't really know if it's good to go, but this patch does not >> > > > depend on it in any way. A subsequent patch can drop the >> > > > wait_for_bit() from here, it's the same as the wait_for_bit() in >> > > > dwc2 and other wait_for_bit() anywhere else, but I don't see a >> > > > reason why this patch should not be applied now. >> > > > >> > > > If I follow the logic in this thread, it would also be possible to >> > > > say that this patch should wait until Eric submits the MX6S DDR >> > > > support for example. We could indefinitelly wait for new and new >> > > > stuff which might possibly block this. >> > > >> > > Why don't you ack/test/review the wait_for_bit series and post a >> > > follow-up to this one that uses the common function, which can be >> > > squashed into the original and then this gets picked up? >> > >> > Why ? I can send subsequent patch which removes the duplicate >> > wait_for_bit() from this code once the wait_for_bit series is applied. I >> > don't see a problem with that and the wait_for_bit() being so explicitly >> > pulled out from the code is done with that in mind. But that does not >> > block this patch from being applied now. Does it? >> >> If I tell you I'm probably going to have the wait_for_bit stuff applied >> before the next imx PR is ready... ? > > So, why is this patchset not applied yet ... ? >
Stefano, I would also like to see this applied. I have some time in the coming weeks to do some extensive testing of it over a variety of memory chips and configurations. Regards, Tim _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
