Hi Tom,
I have pulled the latest series into a branch in the x86 tree. You can also get it from patchwork. If you are happy with it, please see below. I haven't seen any comments for a few days.
The following changes since commit 47104c37de076e2be35ae1b3d144614f4d24a766:
MAKEALL: add support for per architecture toolchains (2013-02-20 09:40:34 -0500)
are available in the git repository at:
git://git.denx.de/u-boot-x86.git mem
for you to fetch changes up to dc63c7ccecee7b22fdc06f2c9d62d53bd5511b00:
hash: Use lower case for hash algorithm names (2013-02-27 13:13:16 -0800)
---------------------------------------------------------------- Allen Martin (1): sandbox: fix compiler warning
Simon Glass (21): Tidy up error checking and fix bug in hash command Update print_buffer() to use const sandbox: Add un/map_sysmen() to deal with sandbox's ram_buf sandbox: Change memory commands to use map_physmem Split out the memory tests into separate functions Use common mtest iteration counting Fix mtest indenting Bring mtest putc() into common code Reduce casting in mtest Update set_working_fdt_addr() to use setenv_addr() common: Use new numeric setenv functions fs: Use new numeric setenv functions net: Use new numeric setenv functions image: Use crc header file instead of C prototypes hash: Add a flag to support saving hashes in the environment Roll crc32 into hash infrastructure sandbox: config: Enable hash functions and mtest Move CONFIG_SYS_MEMTEST_SCRATCH #ifdef to top of file sandbox: Update mtest to fix crashes sandbox: Allow hash functions to work correctly hash: Use lower case for hash algorithm names
Taylor Hutt (1): sandbox: Improve sandbox serial port keyboard interface
README | 9 + arch/sandbox/config.mk | 1 + arch/sandbox/cpu/os.c | 8 + arch/sandbox/cpu/start.c | 3 + arch/sandbox/include/asm/io.h | 10 + common/cmd_bootm.c | 11 +- common/cmd_cbfs.c | 4 +- common/cmd_cramfs.c | 4 +- common/cmd_fdos.c | 4 +- common/cmd_fdt.c | 11 +- common/cmd_hash.c | 14 +- common/cmd_jffs2.c | 4 +- common/cmd_load.c | 12 +- common/cmd_mem.c | 798 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- common/cmd_mtdparts.c | 4 +- common/cmd_nand.c | 12 +- common/cmd_nvedit.c | 11 +- common/cmd_reiser.c | 4 +- common/cmd_setexpr.c | 39 ++- common/cmd_sha1sum.c | 6 +- common/cmd_unzip.c | 4 +- common/cmd_ximg.c | 7 +- common/cmd_zfs.c | 3 +- common/cmd_zip.c | 4 +- common/hash.c | 194 +++++++--- common/image.c | 4 +- drivers/net/fm/fm.c | 4 +- drivers/serial/sandbox.c | 44 ++- fs/fs.c | 4 +- fs/ubifs/ubifs.c | 4 +- include/common.h | 29 +- include/configs/sandbox.h | 9 +- include/hash.h | 13 +- include/os.h | 10 + include/u-boot/crc.h | 11 + lib/crc32.c | 9 + lib/display_options.c | 3 +- net/net.c | 8 +- 38 files changed, 750 insertions(+), 583 deletions(-)
Regards, Simon
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Tom Rini trini@ti.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 01:32:58PM -0800, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Wolfgang,
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Simon Glass,
In message CAPnjgZ2P6sBDXiwXW2TeCdjADMhkN5iNBGrpZbtvwMqUtYVVxA@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
Hi Tom,
This series includes the sandbox map_sysmem() feature, and gets the memory and hashing functions running on sandbox to allow testing/code coverage. I have run it through buildman and it seems clean, with the proviso that I don't have fully-working toolchains for all architectures.
NAK. It is not correct to push changes that affect global code through a arch-specific custodian tree, especially if the submitter of the patche(es) is identical to the custodian of the very tree, and even more so if there have been not ANY independent Acked-by: or at least Tested-by: messages.
This is NOT how the peer review process is supposed to work!!
Especially as a custodian you must not do such things.
OK, I was not quite sure what to do, so may have misunderstood Tom's instructions - there is a short thread here http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/153342
I have created a patchwork bundle instead.
OK, I thought I said, but maybe I didn't, I'm OK with re-using the tree, but _not_ the master branch, u-boot-x86/sandbox would have been fine.
Yes, you said "toss it into a branch in u-boot-x86.git". It did cross my mind to use something other than master, but I wasn't sure if that was OK in U-Boot. I know for next time.
Regards, Simon
-- Tom