[U-Boot] u-boot-socfpga repository

[Marek Vasut]

On Monday, September 15, 2014 at 03:07:11 AM, Chin Liang See wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Sun, 2014-09-14 at 12:46 -0400, ZY - trini wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:02:08AM -0500, Dinh Nguyen wrote:
> > > Hi Wolfgang,
> > > 
> > > On 9/12/14, 5:51 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > > > Dear Dinh,
> > > 
> > > > In message <541373AD.4020902 at opensource.altera.com> you wrote:
> > > Also, I went back and look at the "flurry" of patches for socfpga, and
> > > I must commend Tom Rini on a fantastic job for applying the patches. I
> > > was only able to find 1 patch that needed addressing:
> > > 
> > > [socfpga: generic board for socfpga] from Pavel Machek
> > 
> > Can you test it, and Reviewed-by/Acked-by/Tested-by or something the
> > patch?  patchwork collects these and that is a big part of our review
> > and merge process here.
> 
> This is actually a big patch which should be split to smaller patch.
> Nevertheless, I already started reviewing it last week and hopefully can
> get it reviewed by today.

I did manage to split that big patch, clean it up and update it to match the 
latest rocketboards 2013.01.01 code. Please give me a few more days to finish 
with this and post the result. It's about 50 patches so far. I can send them to 
you off-list if you want to check them early.

So far, the SPL cannot be built and I still depend on the one generated by 
Quartus. On the other hand , the rest of the U-Boot works well, incl. ethernet 
and SDMMC . I also fixed L1 and L2 cache issues all over the place and cleaned 
up the code, so the thing is also much faster now.

> > > For now, I have it applied to
> > > 
> > > git://git.rocketboards.org/u-boot-socfpga-next.git for_next  branch.
> > 
> > Here's a difference from the Linux kernel community.  We really do want
> > to use a git tree hosted on git.denx.de for pulls.
> > 
> > > There are a few patches that needs to be addressed in the mailing list,
> > > but I don't see any other patches that needs to be applied at this
> > > moment. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > 
> > > To summarize, have we failed as maintainers of socfpga that you would
> > > need to assign somebody else to be the custodian for socfpga? If
> > > so, I apologize and would like for you to reconsider your position and
> > > let us try to do a better job.
> > 
> > Just like in the kernel community, it's a position that has to be
> > earned.  I understand there should be big round of patches posted soon,
> > which will be a good place to see follow-through.  There's also the
> > denali NAND patches which are blocking another SoC from going in as well
> > which I'm hoping to see v10 of posted sometime in the coming week.
> 
> The v10 NAND patch was posted last week. In fact, the patch was working
> for both Altera and Panasonic since v7. It takes up to v10 as I received
> some late comments.
> 
> At same time, just fyi, there is slowness for for last few patches as I
> was on paternity leave for last few weeks :)

No worries.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut