[U-Boot] [PATCH V3 0/6] Tegra210/P2571 initial support

[Tom Warren]

Thanks, Tom.

Simon Glass reviewed the earlier 64-bit patches, so I'll take that as the stamp of approval for them.

Stephen/Thierry - what about the most recent 3 'ARM: tegra' 64-bit patches? Do I need to wait until someone else has Ack'd / reviewed them, or do you feel they're good to go? I guess I can say that I've 'tested' them, but I'd really like someone besides myself to approve them.

Tom

--
nvpublic

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Rini [mailto:trini at konsulko.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 3:08 PM
> To: Tom Warren
> Cc: Albert Aribaud; u-boot at lists.denx.de; Thierry Reding; Stephen Warren;
> tomcwarren3959 at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V3 0/6] Tegra210/P2571 initial support
> 
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
> 
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 09:51:11PM +0000, Tom Warren wrote:
> > TomR/Albert,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stephen Warren [mailto:swarren at wwwdotorg.org]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 11:01 AM
> > > To: Tom Warren
> > > Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de; Thierry Reding; Stephen Warren;
> > > tomcwarren3959 at gmail.com
> > > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V3 0/6] Tegra210/P2571 initial support
> > >
> > > On 07/24/2015 04:00 PM, Tom Warren wrote:
> > > > This patch series adds support for the Tegra210 SoC and the P2571
> > > > board. Most of the T210 info is identical to T124 at this point,
> > > > so I just cloned Venice2/Jetson-TK1 board files and T124 header/SoC
> code.
> > > > Pinmux is the major area of difference at this time, but other
> > > > changes will be made as more features of the board are brought up.
> > >
> > > The series,
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren at nvidia.com>
> > >
> > > I've also validated that:
> > >
> > > a) I can compile it when applied to upstream u-boot/master (a couple
> > > days old).
> > >
> > > b) I applied it to our internal L4T U-Boot branch, ported it to
> > > another
> > > T210 board, flashed it, and booted an L4T kernel (with a few other
> > > L4T-specific patches on top).
> > >
> > > I don't think that's quite enough for a Tested-by tag upstream since
> > > I haven't actually booted the upstream code, but it's good enough
> > > for me to consider the series tested:-)
> >
> > I've applied my T210 work on top of Stephen's recent 10-patch 'arm' 64-bit
> cleanup series and his 3-patch 'tegra' 64-bit fixes, onto my current u-boot-
> tegra/master after rebasing it against TOT u-boot/master. Everything builds OK
> (all Tegra 32-bit, and all ARM 64-bit), and my T210 boots OK to cmd prompt,
> with all periphs working (USB, I2C, SPI, GPIO, MMC).
> >
> > So my question is, how should I go about issuing a PR for the T210 work? It
> should apply OK w/o Stephen's 64-bit fixes, but it won't build w/o them. But
> only a few are actually Tegra-specific (the 3 from today).
> >
> > Is it OK if I send one PR with _all_ these patches in u-boot-tegra/master,
> including the 'arm' 64-bit, the 'tegra' 64-bit, and finally my T210 series on top?
> Or do you want them split up and the 'arm' 64-bit fixes taken in to either u-
> boot-arm/master or u-boot/master first (just pulled from the list, I guess), then
> a PR from me for the 3 Tegra 64-bit fixes plus my T210 series?
> 
> One PR with everything sounds OK to me.
> 
> --
> Tom
> 
> * Unknown Key
> * 0x56D6FECD