[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH 1/3 RESEND] ppc4xx: Add initial esd PMC440 board files

[Jon Loeliger]

Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
> 
>> Hi Matthias,
>>
>> On Friday 28 December 2007, Matthias Fuchs wrote:
>>> This patch adds the first files for the new esd PMC440 boards.
>>> The next two patches will complete the PMC440 board support.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Fuchs <matthias.fuchs at esd-electronics.com>
>>> ---
>>>  board/{amcc/sequoia => esd/pmc440}/Makefile        |    4 +-
>>>  board/{amcc/sequoia => esd/pmc440}/config.mk       |    0
>>>  board/{amcc/sequoia => esd/pmc440}/init.S          |   64 +--
>>>  .../sequoia/sequoia.c => esd/pmc440/pmc440.c}      |  564
>>> +++++++++++++++----- board/esd/pmc440/pmc440.h                          | 
>>> 154 ++++++
>>>  board/{amcc/sequoia => esd/pmc440}/sdram.c         |    0
>>>  board/{amcc/sequoia => esd/pmc440}/sdram.h         |    0
>>>  board/{amcc/sequoia => esd/pmc440}/u-boot-nand.lds |    0
>>>  board/{amcc/sequoia => esd/pmc440}/u-boot.lds      |    0
>>>  9 files changed, 595 insertions(+), 191 deletions(-)
>>>  copy board/{amcc/sequoia => esd/pmc440}/Makefile (95%)
>>>  copy board/{amcc/sequoia => esd/pmc440}/config.mk (100%)
>>>  copy board/{amcc/sequoia => esd/pmc440}/init.S (71%)
>>>  copy board/{amcc/sequoia/sequoia.c => esd/pmc440/pmc440.c} (57%)
>>>  create mode 100644 board/esd/pmc440/pmc440.h
>>>  copy board/{amcc/sequoia => esd/pmc440}/sdram.c (100%)
>>>  copy board/{amcc/sequoia => esd/pmc440}/sdram.h (100%)
>>>  copy board/{amcc/sequoia => esd/pmc440}/u-boot-nand.lds (100%)
>>>  copy board/{amcc/sequoia => esd/pmc440}/u-boot.lds (100%)
>> This option you used to make the patches smaller (find-copies or something 
>> like this) really makes reviewing not easy. And additionally the patch 
>> doesn't apply anymore, since the reference (sequoia) has changed in my non 
>> publiched branch already. Another reason why I would like to see a 100k size 
>> limit on this list.
>>
>> So Matthias, could you please resend these 3 patches without this option to me 
>> directly?
> 
> This failure mode of git is so annoying, effectively rendering the nice
> patch format useless, that we researched a little bit deeper.

Which failure mode?  I missed the description of a failure
anywhere in this discussion.  Is there a repeatable bug setup
that duplicates this failure?

Are you just referring to it not finding copies in patches
by default?  And that in this case someone used them to 
make the patch smaller?  I mean, if it says 100% copy, then
it is a literal move, and if it is fractional, the relevant
diffs should be present in the patch still anyway.

> Am I correct to assume that you tried to apply the patch with "plain"
> git-am only, i.e. without using -3?
> 
> Because by now I am pretty much convinced that you should have been able
> to successfully use it with a "git-am -3" as this invokation really
> tries to do a merge of the recorded identities of the relevant blobs
> instead of "only applying diffs".

Right.  As long as the SHA1 in the patch are present in
the repository to which the patch is being applied, it will
attempt to revert to a 3-way merge based on that ancestor.

> For the git savvy among the readers on a lower level this uses
> "--build-fake-ancestor" from git-apply although this option does not
> lend itself to easy usage from a command line.

Uh, "-3" on a "git am" command is pretty easy, isn't it? :-)

Which might be a subtle way of saying that I missed
your point, perhaps?

jdl