[U-Boot] Patches for this merge window

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:
> [take 2 for me, gmail defaults to reply not reply-all]
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Simon Glass <sjg at google.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> I see quite a lot of non-x86 patches in my todo list - does that mean
>> that I should pick them up if I am happy with them, or just assign
>> them back to you once I've taken a look?
>
> For stuff you've posted, yes, you can either toss it back to me, toss
> it into a branch in u-boot-x86.git or toss it into a patchwork bundle
> and hand 'em back to me.

OK will do.

>
>> I'm keen to get the sandbox fs and memory stuff in fairly early if
>> possible, since I fear breakages and the longer people have to test
>> the better. No one has screamed about map_sysmem() but I'm not sure if
>> anyone noticed. So I could pull these in, build and send a pull if
>> that suits? Perhaps one series at a time.... Also if Mike is having a
>> break should I pull in the SPI ones assigned to me?
>
> In general I've tried to skim patches at least, and will give things
> one more read over when it comes back at me to pull in (however that
> is).  For trivial SPI stuff (more IDs, etc) yes. For the changes to
> writing and output and so forth, keep those in a
> separate request if nothing else.

OK, will try that.

>
>> There is also buildman, and I'm not sure what to do about that. It
>> would be nice to have some feedback if people have tried it - I have
>> had a few private emails only. I think it's a great help, but it still
>> has some rough edges.
>
> I still need to try that myself, sorry.  Has anything changed from the
> last series you posted?

Not really, it is in the same stage.

>
>> Anyway, please let me know your expectations with the above. Re x86, I
>> am going to start applying things this week once the board removable
>> patch is sorted out.
>>
>> Generic board is also a big change, but since it is sort-of parallel
>> to existing code and only turned on on a board-by-board basis the risk
>> is lower - it just need some weeks of review time IMO.
>
> Sounds good, thanks!
>
> --
> Tom

Regards,
Simon