[U-Boot-Users] TI DaVinci merge, was: uboot custodian question

[Dirk Behme]

Nishanth Menon wrote:
> Ksi,
> 
> ksi at koi8.net stated on 8/1/2007 11:39 PM:
> 
>>What work? It's been 3 months since I've submitted patches for fully
>>working
>>U-Boot on TMS320DM6446  platform. I do already have some patches to those
>>patches. We do run it for something like 6 months on various boards. What
>>work are you talking about, man?
>>
>>I'm really really angry, nobody seems to care... What else should I do to
>>get the _PERFECTLY WORKING_ port into the main tree? What's the problem?
> 
> My apologies on not following up mails in the uboot list.. I was not
> aware of your work.. but I do know that OMAP24xx and OMAP34xx patches
> need a lot of rework.. I could be wrong to imagine that these could
> share some files with Davinci and viceversa... I can see the patch here
> in the ARM  queue: http://www.denx.de/wiki/UBoot/PatchStatus (posted on
> 2007-05-08) maybe Peter can comment on his plans of merger..

Let us start to get an overview regarding TI DaVinci patches floating 
around. Sorry if anything is wrong or missing, please correct then.

First, I think we should split the discussion for OMAP24xx and 
OMAP34xx from DaVinci.

So, looking at DaVinci, I can at least identify three patchsets 
floating around, not sure if and what the relationship is between them.

1. (Original?) patch from Ksi:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/27603
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/27604
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/27605
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/28314

I think these are the patches mentioned in

http://www.denx.de/wiki/UBoot/PatchStatus

2.Patch from Philip Balister:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/29399

http://www.balister.org/~balister/u-boot-sffsdr.patch

3. Patch from Ivan Tonchev:

http://linux.omap.com/pipermail/davinci-linux-open-source/2007-July/003645.html
http://linux.omap.com/pipermail/davinci-linux-open-source/2007-July/003652.html

I haven't looked at all of these.

A short discussion with Philip Balister showed some basic requirements 
for a merge candidate: At least support for TMS320DM6446 based DV-EVM 
with default/basic NOR and EMIF configuration. Further, it would be 
nice if the initial work is easily extendable to machines beyond the 
EVM. May be we need to split the processor stuff off from the board 
stuff so that it is easy to add additional boards later.

Opinions?

Best regards

Dirk

P.S.: DaVinci list in CC for information.