On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:28:25PM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Masahiro,
On 21 November 2014 09:29, Masahiro Yamada yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com wrote:
Hi Simon, Tom,
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 08:24:54 +0100 Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Masahiro,
On 21 November 2014 08:11, Masahiro Yamada yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com wrote:
Simon,
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 08:00:27 +0100 Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Tom,
Here's the introduction of bare x86 support.
The following changes since commit 4d70b34d7f721d8b1d4d628e68c3a44ab7a10dff:
Merge branch 'master' of git://git.denx.de/u-boot-ubi (2014-11-19 23:18:29 -0500)
are available in the git repository at:
git://git.denx.de/u-boot-x86.git
for you to fetch changes up to fe5b9b447c6eea3873833b1f3ba15c9854aa2ef8:
x86: Rename chromebook-x86 to coreboot (2014-11-21 07:34:16 +0100)
Bin Meng (4): x86: Do CPU identification in the early phase x86: Do TSC MSR calibration only for known/supported CPUs x86: Add quick TSC calibration via PIT x86: Save TSC frequency in the global data
Masahiro Yamada (1): x86: use CONFIG_SYS_COREBOOT to descend into coreboot/ directory
Wait, this patch was posted as a series.
It should not be applied without the others in my series. What is going on?
I applied this to x86 a while back - it actually was the same as a patch I had locally so I picked up yours instead. It works fine on x86 and I think it is independent of the series.
So I know this is a bit unusual but I think it is OK.
Understood, but I am a bit unhappy because
- The subject "x86: use CONFIG_SYS_COREBOOT to descend into coreboot/ directory" is totally unrelated to the actual code
- The first hunk was lost of my original patch, so I have to resend my series to get it back.
Tom, if possible, after you pull this, can you rephrase the commit subject locally? For ex.
"x86: use CONFIG_SYS_COREBOOT to descend into coreboot/ directory"
->
"x86: remove redundant CONFIG_SYS_COREBOOT references"I will resend my series lator...
Ah sorry, I'm not sure what went wrong but it looks like I dropped a piece.
Tom, if you haven't already applied it, I'll drop this patch and resend the pull request next week.
So this PR is OK because I've already locally applied the whole series from Masahiro and have been doing some build/fix cycles on it all (that series wasn't problematic but the min/max update needed a few cycles to get all the edges right).