[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 0/17] sandbox: Generic board support and other improvements

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 06:10:15AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:

> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 11:42:35AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> >>
> >>> This series adds generic board support to sandbox and switches to use this
> >>> always.
> >>>
> >>> With sandbox it was noticed that turning CONFIG_SYS_GENERIC_BOARD off
> >>> can cause a build failure if a previous autoconf.mk exists which indicates
> >>> that generic board is not supported, so a patch is provided to fix this.
> >>>
> >>> It is useful to convert a pointer into an 'address' in the sandbox RAM
> >>> buffer - the opposite of map_sysmem(). This is added in this series and
> >>> used in several places.
> >>>
> >>> With sandbox it is easier to read a file from the host than to use the
> >>> CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE option, since this option requires knowledge of the
> >>> executable image structure which is not really appropriate on the host
> >>> system. A new CONFIG_OF_HOSTFILE provides this.
> >>>
> >>> A few related FDT changes are included in this series also.
> >>>
> >>> The -c option is enhanced to support passing entire scripts to sandbox.
> >>> This is useful when writing non-trivial test code.
> >>>
> >>> Most of these patches were previously submitted as part of the verified
> >>> boot effort. This series collects the independent sandbox-related patches
> >>> together to make it easier to review. THe whole series is marked as
> >>> version 3 for this reason.
> >>
> >> For the series,
> >> Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <trini at ti.com>
> >>
> >> And I'd say 3/4/5 should be squashed into one patch, but it's your arch
> >> so I'l defer if you think it adds bisect value or similar to do it in
> >> that manner.
> >
> > I did that so that it could be kind-of an example of how this can be
> > done for an arch, given that I am not planning to convert the rest. By
> > removing the dead code in a separate step it seemed a bit clearer to
> > me.
> >
> > But it's fine either way - I will squash it and resend.
> 
> 
> I have put this series in patchwork as:
> 
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/bundle/sjg/sandbox/

This has now been applied to u-boot/master, thanks!

> and below is a pull request if you want to take that instead.
> 
> I did not go through and add your Reviewed-by to each patch. Am I
> supposed to do that?

No, that pain is supposed to help spur us into improving patchwork or
the new tool we talked about back at LSM.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20130501/992de569/attachment.pgp>