[U-Boot] [PATCH] part_efi: fix protective_mbr struct allocation

[Lukasz Majewski]

Hi Albert,

> Hi Lukasz,
> 
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:25:37 +0100, Lukasz Majewski
> <l.majewski at samsung.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Albert,
> > 
> > > Hi Hector,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:52:07 +0100, "Palacios, Hector"
> > > <Hector.Palacios at digi.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On 02/19/2014 11:16 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:08:03 +0100, Albert ARIBAUD
> > > > >
> > > > >>> Thanks for pointing out. Now it is perfectly visible :-)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Inclusion of v2 has been postponed since there was a
> > > > >>>>> discussion if we shall allow unaligned access
> > > > >>>>> (-mno-unaligned-access flag) at armv7 (after patches
> > > > >>>>> posted by Tom).
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> As fair as I can tell, we will keep the current approach
> > > > >>>>> so, I think that Tom will be willing to pull this patch
> > > > >>>>> (v2) now.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Agreed, but then we should make sure no one has comments
> > > > >>>> on V2 that they might have withheld due to the initial
> > > > >>>> rejection of V2.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Any comments?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> This patch do fix unaligned access problem on Trats2
> > > > >>> (Exynos4412), when we restore/create GPT, so I would like to
> > > > >>> know if there are any new inquires regarding this patch.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Does not seem to be, so I will apply V2.
> > > > >
> > > > > Correction: I would like it to be applied as per current ARM
> > > > > alignment policy, but this patch is not ARM per se and is in
> > > > > Tom's hands.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom, can you apply http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/314717/ ?
> > > > > This would by no means close the discussion I opened, and in
> > > > > the event of a policy change, the patch could always be
> > > > > reverted; meanwhile, it matches our current policy.
> > > > 
> > > > I tested Piotr's patch on i.MX6 (armv7) custom board and it is
> > > > working fine without the -mno-unaligned-access flag.
> > > > 
> > > > Tested-by: Hector Palacios <hector.palacios at digi.com>
> > > 
> > > You've just Tested-By-ed your own patch, I think.
> > 
> > Nope. 
> > 
> > Patch prepared by Piotr is orthogonal to the one prepared by Hector.
> > 
> > Hector has spotted other mistake at GPT code (made by me).
> > Fix for it has been posted a few days ago:
> > 
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/319914/
> 
> I did not comment on the relationship between patches, I only
> commented on the fact that Hector said he has tested Piotr's patch but
> sent his Tested-by on his own patch thread, not on Piotr's. To verify
> this, look up
> 
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/319649/
> 
> ... which is Hector's patchwork entry and has his own Tested-by, and
> 
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/314717/
> 
> ... which is Piotr's patch and does not have Hector's (or
> anyone's) Tested-by.

Hmm. I've misunderstood you a bit. 

Anyway thanks for clarification :-).

> 
> Amicalement,



-- 
Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group