On Monday 05 October 2009, Paulraj, Sandeep wrote:
I have already ack-ed Sandeep's patch that contains this fix for the warning. Please check with him.
That is correct, I did not add it to my tree because you ACK'ed this patch only after I sent a pull request. So obviously I cannot add a patch that has been ACK'ed to an already existing pull request.
A "pull <this ID>" request wouldn't have been changed by adding another commit to that tree. You could however have sent an updated pull request, with both.
That would result in a tree that *builds* properly...
This will be part of my next pull request which will have a similar fix for DM365 and hopefully the EMAC support for DM365 which should result in a fully functional DM365 EVM support.
That would be nice. I'll still want the updated CPLD bits, which pass SRST through from the JTAG adapter though; that is obviously not a U-Boot issue. ;)
In general it is better to break patches that do multiple things into multiple patches. When you resubmit, please break this patch into its logical parts :
- NAND
- Environment
- Bootdelay
Tom
If the u-boot-ti tree or the u-boot-arm tree is checked, all the above features which are being added are already in both trees.
I guess that happened after I prepared the patch but before I sent it in. I'll look; there were some differences still. Notably to store the environment in the otherwise-unused block zero, and work better with the small-page NANDs I've got handy.
When Tom sends a pull request to Wolfgang it should become part of Wolfgang's tree as well.
Afcourse it does not have the 64 bit VSPRINTf for which I was going to submit a patch anyway.
That's important ... it doesn't work right without that patch. When you erase or protect blocks, the diagnostics are broken since they give bogus addresses.
- Dave