[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] AT91SAM9263 Board files

[Ulf Samuelsson]

>
>> I think it would be easier if we broke down things into smaller
>> parts.
>
> Yes, it is. But a patch is a patch, not  a  tarball,  and  it  has  a
> description,  a  changelog,  and eventually a sequence number. Please
> see the README.
>
>> First I would like to move of the dataflash support to the driver
>> directory.
>
> I'm not sure this makes sense, given the fact that this will be  soon
> (?) reworked.

It is the driver for dataflash, and the planned changes
are things put on top of the driver.
I am not talking about the memory commands.
The stuff is already there in the AT91SAM926 patches
and this means that if there are any changes, they
will be in a single place instead of one patch
per board.

>
>> Then adding patches for the ARM926 based cpu/board directories,
>> but without any references to these patches in Makefiles/MAKEALL.
>> At the end a patch which would make them buildable.
>
> No. Each patch is supposed to be independent of the others. It should
> be possible to apply only the first N patches of your  sequenbce  and
> get a useful, buildable code version - otherwise you will always have
> to  rework the whole sequence if patch N+1 gets rejected for a reason
> or another.

What I mean is that I want to start with creating the
cpu/arm926ejs/at91sam926x directory and associated includes.
All the AT91SAM926x boards use this.
Before the boardpatches are submitted, this will be a dangling patch
since no board depends on it.

It will be a little easier to do the board patches if the cpu support is
there.

>
> But all this is documented in the README.
>
>> This would during a short period give some "dangling" or unused code
>> I know you don't like that, so how proceed with such a large
>> patchset, where things depend on each other?
>
> Split it in orthogonal chunks. That's what they do  with  Linux,  and
> what we have been doing with U-Boot for a long, long time.
>
>> I dont have any git server which I can use for this.
>
> You don't need a git server. Use a local repositoy, and git to create
> the patches.

I was thinking of the problem of size.
The AT91SAM9263 header > 40 kB bzip2 compressed.

I assumed that if I use a git from where people can pull
I can have larger patches, but that might be a mistake.

>
>> Will try to get access to www.atmel.no like Haavard
>> but I do not know know if it is possible and if it is, when it is
>> possible.
>
> It's not needed.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk

Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
ulf at atmel.com
GSM:  +46 (706) 22 44 57
Tel:     +46  (8) 441 54 22
Fax:     +46 (8) 441 54 29
Mail: Box 2033  174 02 Sundbyberg
Visit: Kavallerivägen 24
          174 58 Sundbyberg'
Sweden