[U-Boot-Users] U-Boot-1.3.0-rc1 released
Hello,
the first release candidate for U-Boot-1.3.0 is out.
Please test it and help to clean up the remaining issues.
PPC is in an acceptable state, but ARM and MIPS and others still need a lot of work...
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Hi, Wolfgang:
Is it being planned to include Microblaze support into official 1.3.0 as well? I mean CPU itself as well as some Xilinx reference boards?
Same question regarding Xilinx PPC405 core and appropriate reference boards.
Thanks,
Leonid.
-----Original Message----- From: u-boot-users-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:u-boot-users-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Denk Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 4:40 PM To: u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [U-Boot-Users] U-Boot-1.3.0-rc1 released
Hello,
the first release candidate for U-Boot-1.3.0 is out.
Please test it and help to clean up the remaining issues.
PPC is in an acceptable state, but ARM and MIPS and others still need a lot of work...
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Dear Leonid,
in message 406A31B117F2734987636D6CCC93EE3C02241E24@ehost011-3.exch011.intermedia.net you wrote:
Is it being planned to include Microblaze support into official 1.3.0 as well? I mean CPU itself as well as some Xilinx reference boards?
1.3.0 will contain what 1.3.0-rc1 contains, plus bug fixes. There haven't been any pull requests from the Microblaze custodian repository lately, and the code in this repo hasn't been changed much in the last month either.
Same question regarding Xilinx PPC405 core and appropriate reference boards.
Ditto: I merged everything that was in the 4xx custodian repository, and I am not aware that Stefan has any open issues left.
In other words: I don't even know what you're looking for.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Hi
Is it being planned to include Microblaze support into official 1.3.0 as well? I mean CPU itself as well as some Xilinx reference boards?
1.3.0 will contain what 1.3.0-rc1 contains, plus bug fixes. There haven't been any pull requests from the Microblaze custodian repository lately, and the code in this repo hasn't been changed much in the last month either.
I sent some pull request and some patches and this patches are in Microblaze branch.
Patches around ROMFS are checked by Grant Likely. Patches around Emac and Emaclite Grant Likely promised to test. But I don't have response on it. Can you send us your comment about patches?
But all patches are in microblaze branch and I hope that are correct.
code in this repo hasn't been changed much in the last month either.
Code has been changed in the last month many times. Especially rebuild of command handling was repaired.
Microblaze repository contain only 3 boards. The first is Suzaku from AtmarkTechno - the first supported board. The second is ML401 which covered all boards with flash memory and the third is Xupv2p which covered all boards without flash memory.
I thing that the three boards covered many development boards and addition new boards are needless in the near future.
Best regards, Michal Simek
On 9/11/07, Michal Simek Monstr@seznam.cz wrote:
Hi
Is it being planned to include Microblaze support into official 1.3.0 as well? I mean CPU itself as well as some Xilinx reference boards?
1.3.0 will contain what 1.3.0-rc1 contains, plus bug fixes. There haven't been any pull requests from the Microblaze custodian repository lately, and the code in this repo hasn't been changed much in the last month either.
I sent some pull request and some patches and this patches are in Microblaze branch.
Patches around ROMFS are checked by Grant Likely. Patches around Emac and Emaclite Grant Likely promised to test. But I don't have response on it.
Actually, I promised to review them, but they need to be posted to the list first in proper patch format (which is the process. Patches need to be readable 'inline' so that reviewers can hit 'reply' and start commenting on the changes. It is not fair to ask reviews to download a tarball and cut/paste the pieces to review into an email.
Cheers, g.
Hi,
Actually, I promised to review them, but they need to be posted to the list first in proper patch format (which is the process. Patches need to be readable 'inline' so that reviewers can hit 'reply' and start commenting on the changes. It is not fair to ask reviews to download a tarball and cut/paste the pieces to review into an email.
Yes you are right in first set of patches I compressed patches and sent them in attachement. I was sorry for that.
August 30. I sent patches in proper form. Can you review these? If the patches are demaged I will send you patches again.
Michal
On 9/11/07, Michal Simek Monstr@seznam.cz wrote:
Hi,
Actually, I promised to review them, but they need to be posted to the list first in proper patch format (which is the process. Patches need to be readable 'inline' so that reviewers can hit 'reply' and start commenting on the changes. It is not fair to ask reviews to download a tarball and cut/paste the pieces to review into an email.
Yes you are right in first set of patches I compressed patches and sent them in attachement. I was sorry for that.
August 30. I sent patches in proper form. Can you review these? If the patches are demaged I will send you patches again.
Sorry about that, I missed your posting. I've read through all your patches. The EMAC and EMACLITE stuff looks pretty good. Biggest issue is that the config macros need to be prefixed with CONFIG_ before they are merged (this will probably become doubly important in the next merge window)
I've got real concerns about the ROMFS stuff. I don't like the approach of overloading the JFFS2 code to add new filesystems, and I really don't like that it's compiled in unconditionally. Looks like it's time to define a proper set of filesystem hooks.
Cheers, g.
Michal
Actually, I promised to review them, but they need to be posted to the list first in proper patch format (which is the process. Patches need to be readable 'inline' so that reviewers can hit 'reply' and start commenting on the changes. It is not fair to ask reviews to download a tarball and cut/paste the pieces to review into an email.
Yes you are right in first set of patches I compressed patches and sent them
in attachement.
I was sorry for that.
August 30. I sent patches in proper form. Can you review these? If the patches are demaged I will send you patches again.
Sorry about that, I missed your posting. I've read through all your patches. The EMAC and EMACLITE stuff looks pretty good. Biggest issue is that the config macros need to be prefixed with CONFIG_ before they are merged (this will probably become doubly important in the next merge window)
It is not problem. I will fix all macros.
I've got real concerns about the ROMFS stuff. I don't like the approach of overloading the JFFS2 code to add new filesystems, and I really don't like that it's compiled in unconditionally. Looks like it's time to define a proper set of filesystem hooks.
Yes the right time become. I would like to use all file system separately but it was the easy way to add romfs as CRAMFS for me.
Cheers, g.
Thanks for your reviews. M
In message 2210.6084-28353-1398274901-1189500101@seznam.cz you wrote:
But all patches are in microblaze branch and I hope that are correct.
code in this repo hasn't been changed much in the last month either.
Code has been changed in the last month many times.
When I checked the repository before answering the message, the latest commit in the microblaze repository was from mid August:
Commit: 78cff50edba6b1508eb15c2f53ce966ac891eb9e Author: Michal Simek monstr@monstr.eu Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:46:28 +0200
And even checking now I see just a merge commit (9c73f4b8, which is based on 78cff50e [see above] and e251e00d [top of main]), and one single real commit:
Commit: d45963854eff39d575124d859419bb4953ce2c87 Author: Michal Simek monstr@monstr.eu Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:37:04 +0200
[FIX] Microblaze ML401 - repare FLASH handling
I fail to see what you mean by "Code has been changed in the last month many times." - I do not see any such changes. Also, I don't remember postings with the corresponding many patches here on the list?
In the line above you write "in microblaze branch" - maybe I'm missing some vital information?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
On Sep 7, 2007, at 6:40 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Hello,
the first release candidate for U-Boot-1.3.0 is out.
Please test it and help to clean up the remaining issues.
PPC is in an acceptable state, but ARM and MIPS and others still need a lot of work...
Mind updating the top level Makefile to 1.3.0 -rc1?
- k
participants (5)
-
Grant Likely -
Kumar Gala -
Leonid -
Michal Simek -
Wolfgang Denk