[U-Boot-Users] Pull request u-boot-blackfin.git
The following changes since commit 1f1554841a4c8e069d331176f0c3059fb2bb8280: Wolfgang Denk (1): Merge branch 'master' of /home/wd/git/u-boot/custodians
are available in the git repository at:
git://www.denx.de/git/u-boot-blackfin.git review
Mike Frysinger (14): Blackfin: make baud calculation more accurate Blackfin: fix up UART status bit handling Blackfin: fix up comment about CONFIG_BFIN_BOOT_MODE Blackfin: punt unused page_descriptor_table_size definition Blackfin: punt mem_init.h since it is no longer used Blackfin: update cpu header definitions from latest Blackfin toolchain Blackfin: punt unused BF533-STAMP definitions Blackfin: resurrect BF533-STAMP video splash driver Blackfin: touchup BF561-EZKIT board file Blackfin: set default boot SPI CS for BF538/BF539 Blackfin: kill conversion warnings in async nand driver Blackfin: tighten up post memory coding style Blackfin: overhaul i2c driver Blackfin: implement go/boote wrappers
board/bf533-stamp/Makefile | 9 +- board/bf533-stamp/bf533-stamp.c | 1 - board/bf533-stamp/bf533-stamp.h | 3 - board/bf533-stamp/video.c | 257 +++++++++++++ board/bf533-stamp/video.h | 25 ++ board/bf537-stamp/nand.c | 8 +- board/bf537-stamp/post-memory.c | 23 +- board/bf537-stamp/spi_flash.c | 4 +- board/bf561-ezkit/bf561-ezkit.c | 6 +- cpu/blackfin/Makefile | 2 +- cpu/blackfin/i2c.c | 444 ----------------------- cpu/blackfin/initcode.c | 2 +- cpu/blackfin/serial.c | 72 +++- cpu/blackfin/serial.h | 8 +- drivers/i2c/Makefile | 1 + drivers/i2c/bfin-twi_i2c.c | 298 +++++++++++++++ include/asm-blackfin/blackfin-config-pre.h | 4 +- include/asm-blackfin/cplb.h | 7 +- include/asm-blackfin/mach-common/bits/lockbox.h | 70 ++-- include/asm-blackfin/mem_init.h | 321 ---------------- include/configs/bf533-ezkit.h | 2 +- include/configs/bf533-stamp.h | 2 +- include/configs/bf537-stamp.h | 43 +-- lib_blackfin/Makefile | 2 +- lib_blackfin/{bootm.c => boot.c} | 20 + 25 files changed, 738 insertions(+), 896 deletions(-) create mode 100644 board/bf533-stamp/video.c create mode 100644 board/bf533-stamp/video.h delete mode 100644 cpu/blackfin/i2c.c create mode 100644 drivers/i2c/bfin-twi_i2c.c delete mode 100644 include/asm-blackfin/mem_init.h rename lib_blackfin/{bootm.c => boot.c} (80%)
In message 1212289153-5117-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org you wrote:
The following changes since commit 1f1554841a4c8e069d331176f0c3059fb2bb8280: Wolfgang Denk (1): Merge branch 'master' of /home/wd/git/u-boot/custodians
are available in the git repository at:
git://www.denx.de/git/u-boot-blackfin.git review
What's that? I cannot make heads nor tails out of this.
If this was intended to be a pull request as the subject suggests, then I see a few problems with that:
* minor problem: please provide stuff for pull requests in the "master" branch, as requested in http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/UBoot/CustodianGitTrees#BEFORE_Requesting_a_Pul...
* Major problem: only changes should be used in custodian trees and submitted as part of a pull request, that had been submitted to the mailing list before, and for whioch at least no negative comments have been raised. But in this list here:
Mike Frysinger (14): Blackfin: make baud calculation more accurate Blackfin: fix up UART status bit handling Blackfin: fix up comment about CONFIG_BFIN_BOOT_MODE Blackfin: punt unused page_descriptor_table_size definition Blackfin: punt mem_init.h since it is no longer used Blackfin: update cpu header definitions from latest Blackfin toolchain Blackfin: punt unused BF533-STAMP definitions Blackfin: resurrect BF533-STAMP video splash driver Blackfin: touchup BF561-EZKIT board file Blackfin: set default boot SPI CS for BF538/BF539 Blackfin: kill conversion warnings in async nand driver Blackfin: tighten up post memory coding style Blackfin: overhaul i2c driver Blackfin: implement go/boote wrappers
I can only find 2 of these in the mailing list archives:
04/18 Mike Frysinger [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH/review] Blackfin: overhaul i2c driver
Status: change request from Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard, no feedback ever sent.
04/19 Mike Frysinger [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Blackfin: implement go/boote wrappers
Status: rejected by me. Discussion stopped on 04/21.
This is not how you are supposed to work as a custodian.
Please stick to the rules.
Pull rejected.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
On Sunday 01 June 2008, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 1212289153-5117-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org you wrote:
The following changes since commit 1f1554841a4c8e069d331176f0c3059fb2bb8280: Wolfgang Denk (1): Merge branch 'master' of /home/wd/git/u-boot/custodians
are available in the git repository at:
git://www.denx.de/git/u-boot-blackfin.git review
What's that? I cannot make heads nor tails out of this.
If this was intended to be a pull request as the subject suggests, then I see a few problems with that:
- minor problem: please provide stuff for pull requests in the "master" branch, as requested in
sorry, i forgot about that
- Major problem: only changes should be used in custodian trees and submitted as part of a pull request, that had been submitted to the mailing list before, and for whioch at least no negative comments
all of them have been posted. i dont know why you cant find them. in fact, you responded to about half of them already.
04/18 Mike Frysinger [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH/review] Blackfin: overhaul i2c driver
Status: change request from Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard, no feedback ever sent.
i implemented his suggestions
04/19 Mike Frysinger [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Blackfin: implement go/boote wrappers
Status: rejected by me. Discussion stopped on 04/21.
stopped by you as well. i already explained why the current behavior is broken for Blackfin. a poorly performing system is more desirable than a broken/crashing one. -mike
In message 200806011654.55700.vapier@gentoo.org you wrote:
- Major problem: only changes should be used in custodian trees and submitted as part of a pull request, that had been submitted to the mailing list before, and for whioch at least no negative comments
all of them have been posted. i dont know why you cant find them. in fact, you responded to about half of them already.
I expect that the entry in the pull request match the subject of some posting. Is this not the case? If so, why not?
04/18 Mike Frysinger [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH/review] Blackfin: overhaul i2c driver
Status: change request from Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard, no feedback ever sent.
i implemented his suggestions
You did not repost a cleaned up patch?
04/19 Mike Frysinger [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Blackfin: implement go/boote wrappers
Status: rejected by me. Discussion stopped on 04/21.
stopped by you as well. i already explained why the current behavior is broken for Blackfin. a poorly performing system is more desirable than a broken/crashing one.
So the status quo is that I rejected this patch. Why do you think you could it add to the repo?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
On Sunday 01 June 2008, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 200806011654.55700.vapier@gentoo.org you wrote:
- Major problem: only changes should be used in custodian trees and submitted as part of a pull request, that had been submitted to the mailing list before, and for whioch at least no negative comments
all of them have been posted. i dont know why you cant find them. in fact, you responded to about half of them already.
I expect that the entry in the pull request match the subject of some posting. Is this not the case? If so, why not?
i really have no idea what you're referring to
04/18 Mike Frysinger [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH/review] Blackfin: overhaul i2c driver
Status: change request from Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard, no feedback ever sent.
i implemented his suggestions
You did not repost a cleaned up patch?
to "fix" whitespace ? no, i didnt
04/19 Mike Frysinger [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Blackfin: implement go/boote wrappers
Status: rejected by me. Discussion stopped on 04/21.
stopped by you as well. i already explained why the current behavior is broken for Blackfin. a poorly performing system is more desirable than a broken/crashing one.
So the status quo is that I rejected this patch. Why do you think you could it add to the repo?
you rejected based on a misunderstanding of what the purpose of the change -mike
In message 200806011802.41546.vapier@gentoo.org you wrote:
I expect that the entry in the pull request match the subject of some posting. Is this not the case? If so, why not?
i really have no idea what you're referring to
You wrote:
Mike Frysinger (14): Blackfin: make baud calculation more accurate Blackfin: fix up UART status bit handling Blackfin: fix up comment about CONFIG_BFIN_BOOT_MODE Blackfin: punt unused page_descriptor_table_size definition Blackfin: punt mem_init.h since it is no longer used Blackfin: update cpu header definitions from latest Blackfin toolchain Blackfin: punt unused BF533-STAMP definitions Blackfin: resurrect BF533-STAMP video splash driver Blackfin: touchup BF561-EZKIT board file Blackfin: set default boot SPI CS for BF538/BF539 Blackfin: kill conversion warnings in async nand driver Blackfin: tighten up post memory coding style Blackfin: overhaul i2c driver Blackfin: implement go/boote wrappers
I can find the subjects
overhaul i2c driver and implement go/boote wrappers
in my archive.
I cannot find any of the other subjects. For example, where is any posting that contained the string
fix up comment about CONFIG_BFIN_BOOT_MODE
?
i implemented his suggestions
You did not repost a cleaned up patch?
to "fix" whitespace ? no, i didnt
So how should anybody know if this is the old patch, or if you did any changes, and if so, which changes you did?
We don't want to pull unreviewed code.
So the status quo is that I rejected this patch. Why do you think you could it add to the repo?
you rejected based on a misunderstanding of what the purpose of the change
This is your opinion. Fact is, that I rejected it, and I did not revert this reject, and I do not revert it now.
Actually it is pretty foul game to try and make me pull in stuff which I explicitely rejected.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
On Sunday 01 June 2008, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 200806011802.41546.vapier@gentoo.org you wrote:
I expect that the entry in the pull request match the subject of some posting. Is this not the case? If so, why not?
i really have no idea what you're referring to
You wrote:
Mike Frysinger (14): Blackfin: make baud calculation more accurate Blackfin: fix up UART status bit handling Blackfin: fix up comment about CONFIG_BFIN_BOOT_MODE Blackfin: punt unused page_descriptor_table_size definition Blackfin: punt mem_init.h since it is no longer used Blackfin: update cpu header definitions from latest Blackfin toolchain Blackfin: punt unused BF533-STAMP definitions Blackfin: resurrect BF533-STAMP video splash driver Blackfin: touchup BF561-EZKIT board file Blackfin: set default boot SPI CS for BF538/BF539 Blackfin: kill conversion warnings in async nand driver Blackfin: tighten up post memory coding style Blackfin: overhaul i2c driver Blackfin: implement go/boote wrappers
I can find the subjects
overhaul i2c driver and implement go/boote wrappers
in my archive.
I cannot find any of the other subjects. For example, where is any posting that contained the string
fix up comment about CONFIG_BFIN_BOOT_MODE
i can find them just fine with the same exact subject as well as your replies. dont know what to tell you.
i implemented his suggestions
You did not repost a cleaned up patch?
to "fix" whitespace ? no, i didnt
So how should anybody know if this is the old patch, or if you did any changes, and if so, which changes you did?
you have all the source in the open. there's no secrets. if you dont trust me, you can check things by running `diff`.
We don't want to pull unreviewed code.
for things that are substantial, reposting makes sense. you want to see reposts of only whitespace changes ?
So the status quo is that I rejected this patch. Why do you think you could it add to the repo?
you rejected based on a misunderstanding of what the purpose of the change
This is your opinion. Fact is, that I rejected it, and I did not revert this reject, and I do not revert it now.
then follow up with what needs to happen. your proposals in the thread werent a solution to the problem at hand and you've rejected anything ive tried to do to appease you.
Actually it is pretty foul game to try and make me pull in stuff which I explicitely rejected.
please refrain from such irrelevant comments -mike
In message 200806011847.44121.vapier@gentoo.org you wrote:
I cannot find any of the other subjects. For example, where is any posting that contained the string
fix up comment about CONFIG_BFIN_BOOT_MODE
i can find them just fine with the same exact subject as well as your replies. dont know what to tell you.
Hm...
That's strange.
Now that I look on external achives, I can indeed for example fine your "fix up comment about CONFIG_BFIN_BOOT_MODE" posting.
OK, got it. My mistake was to just "grep" for the Subjects, and this didn't work because your subject lines were so long that they were broken into two lines. Sory...
You did not repost a cleaned up patch?
to "fix" whitespace ? no, i didnt
So how should anybody know if this is the old patch, or if you did any changes, and if so, which changes you did?
you have all the source in the open. there's no secrets. if you dont trust me, you can check things by running `diff`.
This is not a question of trust, it's a question of rules. And the rule is that the submitter of a patch is supposed to provide cleaned up patches on the mailing list, and only when all issues have been resolved the custodian should pick up the stuff.
We don't want to pull unreviewed code.
for things that are substantial, reposting makes sense. you want to see reposts of only whitespace changes ?
Yes, definitely. How else should anybody know if you ever saw the comments? please keep in mind that your situation is special as you are both the submitter of the patch and the custodian who will pick it up. Please try to act as if you were two different persons communicating only over the mailing list.
This is your opinion. Fact is, that I rejected it, and I did not revert this reject, and I do not revert it now.
then follow up with what needs to happen. your proposals in the thread werent a solution to the problem at hand and you've rejected anything ive tried to do to appease you.
I don't have anything new to add to that topic. I wrote on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:19:25:
| I accept that the default settings may be not optimal for your use | case, so please accept that your settings may not be always optimal, | either. As a solution I imagine options to the "go" command. If you | consider this too complicated for your users, please feel free to | provide an alias in an envrionment variable which your users can | "run". ... | I see zero justification for a new command (and very little for | changes to the implementation of "go", but I am still willing to | allow for such extensions if you think it's necessary or more | convenient).
Actually it is pretty foul game to try and make me pull in stuff which I explicitely rejected.
please refrain from such irrelevant comments
Please don't try to make me pull rejected code.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
participants (2)
-
Mike Frysinger -
Wolfgang Denk