[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 0/3] mtd, ubi, ubifs: resync with Linux-3.14

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 08:58:46AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 06:48:27 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> > Hello Tom,
> > 
> > Am 23.06.2014 17:05, schrieb Tom Rini:
> > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 09:36:43AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > >> Dear Heiko,
> > >> 
> > >> In message<53A67ED9.2090705 at denx.de>  you wrote:
> > >>> And I have no chance to detect this difference, when using
> > >>> "git am -3 ..." ... it just remains in the code ...
> > >>> 
> > >>> I vote for copying the linux files, marking U-Boot specific code
> > >>> with __UBOOT__ ...
> > >> 
> > >> Given the complexity of the code  - and of the changes added in U-Boot
> > >> to the original (old) Linux code (which were done over a period of
> > >> time) - I think indeed that your original approach is the better one;
> > >> better both in the sense of requiring less efforts (for creating and
> > >> verifying that all chanes were covered), and less risk to miss
> > >> individual modifications either from the Linux or from the U-Boot
> > >> side.
> > >> 
> > >> Scott, I agree that your suggestion is what usually should work fine,
> > >> but here it apparently fails in a number of places that would be time
> > >> consuming to sort out - and I would expect that the same would happen
> > >> again whenever we update to another new version of the Linux code
> > >> base.  So I think we should stick with Heiko's approach here; it
> > >> documents clearly what he did, it looks complete, and it is working.
> > >> I think it would be a waste of time to redo all the work, just
> > >> differently.
> > > 
> > > OK, lets try this.  One worry at the back of my mind is the fallout we
> > > had when we re-synced to v3.7.1 and tested things as best we were able
> > > to prior to merge.  I think it's too late in the cycle to pull this in
> > 
> > Yes I fear such fallout too ... I could also test on some boards only,
> > the rest is compile clean only ... thats the reason why I had the sync
> > serie as RFC ... maybe we create a mtd-test branch? But on the other
> > hand, things maybe get tested only, if they are in mainline ...
> 
> I'd vouch to apply this first thing after .07 is out and fix the
> problems which arise as we see them.

Yes, I don't think a separate branch will buy us more testers, only
applying it, so very early in the next window.

> It'd also be really nice to see MTD synced more often, any 
> volunteers ?

Well since Scott was asking for someone to take over, I'd like to ask
that whomever takes the job next please see about doing this.  It
shouldn't be as painful if we stay in step (more like 100-150 patches
rather than 700).

-- 
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/20140624/e306020f/attachment.pgp>