[U-Boot] Patches for this merge window

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

[sorry I wrote this yesterday and didn't send]

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.
>
>> 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?

Well sandbox fs and memory stuff are in thank you. So far I haven't
heard of any breakages, but it is early days.

>
> 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.

I will bring in the SPI stuff into a separate branch in the x86 and
send you a pull. I will have to rebase and run a full build first
though.

>
>> 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?

I have a few tweaks so I could send an updated patch.

[..]
>> 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!

And generic board is in also now, which is a big step. Thanks for all
your effort on that.

I am about to rev the verified boot series, and FIT image series base
on feedback.

Also, what is happening on the TPM side? I think we have all the
pieces for making the TPM work properly in U-Boot, as previously
discussed. Along with verified boot we have a pretty solid
implementation now.

Regards,
Simon

>
> --
> Tom