[U-Boot-Users] please pull u-boot-sparc.git master

[Daniel Hellstrom]

Hello Wolfgang,

You have already replied to the pull request, the pull request was 
incorrect I'm sorry for that, and the sparc repo has been update since.

I have read all your comments on the SPARC patches I sent (and I totally 
agree with you) and replied to one or two of them.

I havn't found the time yet to work with u-boot since I sent the 1..8 
patches. So my repository is in the same state as when I sent the 
patches (not the pull request). I'm currently working with other 
projects that have a strict deadline, but as soon as I can I will 
continue my u-boot work. I believe cleaning up the mess (coding style), 
splitting up the patches and make the fixes mentioned on the list will 
go quite quick we I start working with it.

Best regards,
Daniel Hellstrom

Wolfgang Denk wrote:

>Dear Daniel,
>
>in message <47D63F7B.2090002 at gaisler.com> you wrote:
>  
>
>>Please pull sparc. u-boot-sparc.git master.
>>    
>>
>
>I cannot do that, as the commits in your repo don't correspond to the
>patches that have been posted on the  mailing  list.  THis  makes  it
>impossible for me to understand what has been acked or rejected.
>
>  
>
>>* Changes to Common code for SPARC
>>Added SPARC images reqognition to bootm, added SPARC board information 
>>(bdinfo),
>>fixed missleading #error information for CFG_ENV_IS_NOWHERE, SPARc has 
>>read 64-bit in
>>Flash CFI driver.
>> common/cmd_bdinfo.c     |   31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> common/cmd_bootm.c      |    2 ++
>> common/cmd_nvedit.c     |    2 +-
>> drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c |    4 ++++
>> 4 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>    
>>
>
>This summary does not really correspond to what I see in your repo, either ?
>
>
>For example, in your repo I see:
>
>5497218ac3c3 - SPARC: fixed so that bootm recognize SPARC uboot-Images.
>
>        This was posted on the mailing list as "[PATCH 1/8] SPARC:
>	bootm SPARC support".
>
>b38bc5de9ef4 - SPARC: flash_read64 now calls __raw_readq for SPARC.
>
>        This was posted on the mailing list as "[PATCH 2/8] SPARC:
>        SPARC cfi-flash support for 64-bit reads".
>
>        I sent a review comment to this patch, which you did not
>        follow up, and you didn't fix the code either.
>
>	Sorry, this is not the way things are supposed to work.
>
>        And by the way: you must noch check in this  patch  yourself.
>        You gotta run this through the CFI custodian.
>
>etc. etc.
>
>
>I don't have the time to clean up this mess. Sorry, but please follow
>up the feedback to your patches on the mailing list first,  get  them
>through  the  other  custodians  where  needed,  and  then reset your
>repository so it matches the (cleaned  up)  patches  on  the  mailing
>list.
>
>
>Sorry.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Wolfgang Denk
>
>  
>