On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:05:54AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Patch against "testing-NAND" branch can be found here: ftp://ftp.linux-mips.org/pub/linux/mips/people/ladis/u-boot/u-boot-nand.diff
Can you please either send this by e-mail, or put it on a server that actually works?
Hmm, something strange had happened, that server is very stable, backuped with diesel generator... Well, it works now. You might be interested in other patches in u-boot directory, all of them should be in your queue anyway.
It also contains support for new board NetStar (it is not meant to be included - I want to maintain it outside U-Boot, but I'd agree to put it into "testing-NAND" branch for reference), which shows sample
If I add it to "testing-NAND" (and it makes a lot of sense if this is a working example) then it will go more or less automagically into the main tree as soon as I merge branches. Is this acceptable to you?
Yes it is, but for sure I'll explain why I didn't want it to be accepted into mainline. Code in board/netstar runs only on one of many CPUs found in NetStar PBX. It is hardly possible to write code which will make that piece of hw act like PBX without hardware documentation and for other applications it is damn expensive toy. That's why I think there is no use of it for others, more boards means more worries when maintaining code and (nothing personal) patch acceptance speed makes it uninteresting for me. Moreover I basicaly made U-Boot act as second stage loader to allow safe upgrades, because one day I'd like to use yaffs2 filesystem and U-Boot currently doesn't support that. Thus I do not see any single advantage of integrating netstar code into mainline. Of course patch will be still avaible to conform with GPL.
We will have to go through this when switching the code base.
Ideally old and new code should be able to coexist. Please let me know if you
But only one version shall be in the main branch at a time, i. e. one day the new code will replace the old one, and then all boards will need to be converted.
Sure. My point was to allow incremental conversion, without breaking support for yet unconverted boards.
Best regards, ladis