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

[Stephen Warren]

On 07/27/2015 04:51 PM, Tom Warren wrote:
> 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.

I think as the Tegra maintainer, it's your privilege to take those
patches whenever you wish, at least provided there's been reasonable
opportunity for others to review them if they wish (probably ranging
from little time at all for trivial/obvious fixes to a good few days for
more complex or potentially disagreeable changes).

> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
>