Hi,
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Albert ARIBAUD albert.u.boot@aribaud.net wrote:
Hi Simon,
OK, messaged received loud and clear. It does require a change of process at my end - now I have to find relationships between commits in different series going to different maintainers and try to tie them together. Just one more thing to worry about.
Consider a 'paradigm shift' here: instead of building series according to intended custodians, one builds them according to functional relationship. If a series needs one custodian more than the others, he'll take it and ask for the others' ack. If there's a tie, this can be resolved between custodians. If one foresees a tie, then one can proactively suggest a resolution.
But I understand your concern that, in fact, if there is no user immediately forthcoming, then it will just sit there and no one will notice if it is dead code.
BTW, is there any easy way to obtain build-coverage information for U-Boot? In other words, can we easily find code that is not enabled by any existing board? That might be an interesting investigation.
Seconded -- with the added note that we need coverage across all architectures.
This patch is needed by new exynos memory init code. I am copying Hatim so that he is aware that it will need to be sent as part of his memory init series, which I believe is coming soon.
We can leave this for now.
As it happens I think I need this for the hashing code, so I will include this patch when I resend the common/ series.
Regards, Simon
Regards, Simon
Regards, Simon
Amicalement,
Albert.