Hi Tom,
[sorry I wrote this yesterday and didn't send]
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Tom Rini trini@ti.com wrote:
[take 2 for me, gmail defaults to reply not reply-all]
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Simon Glass sjg@google.com wrote:
Hi Tom,
I see quite a lot of non-x86 patches in my todo list - does that mean that I should pick them up if I am happy with them, or just assign them back to you once I've taken a look?
For stuff you've posted, yes, you can either toss it back to me, toss it into a branch in u-boot-x86.git or toss it into a patchwork bundle and hand 'em back to me.
I'm keen to get the sandbox fs and memory stuff in fairly early if possible, since I fear breakages and the longer people have to test the better. No one has screamed about map_sysmem() but I'm not sure if anyone noticed. So I could pull these in, build and send a pull if that suits? Perhaps one series at a time.... Also if Mike is having a break should I pull in the SPI ones assigned to me?
Well sandbox fs and memory stuff are in thank you. So far I haven't heard of any breakages, but it is early days.
In general I've tried to skim patches at least, and will give things one more read over when it comes back at me to pull in (however that is). For trivial SPI stuff (more IDs, etc) yes. For the changes to writing and output and so forth, keep those in a separate request if nothing else.
I will bring in the SPI stuff into a separate branch in the x86 and send you a pull. I will have to rebase and run a full build first though.
There is also buildman, and I'm not sure what to do about that. It would be nice to have some feedback if people have tried it - I have had a few private emails only. I think it's a great help, but it still has some rough edges.
I still need to try that myself, sorry. Has anything changed from the last series you posted?
I have a few tweaks so I could send an updated patch.
[..]
Generic board is also a big change, but since it is sort-of parallel to existing code and only turned on on a board-by-board basis the risk is lower - it just need some weeks of review time IMO.
Sounds good, thanks!
And generic board is in also now, which is a big step. Thanks for all your effort on that.
I am about to rev the verified boot series, and FIT image series base on feedback.
Also, what is happening on the TPM side? I think we have all the pieces for making the TPM work properly in U-Boot, as previously discussed. Along with verified boot we have a pretty solid implementation now.
Regards, Simon
-- Tom