[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] arm: imx6: Add DDR3 calibration code for MX6 Q/D/DL

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 12:00:05AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 11:21:51 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:07:30PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 08:33:57 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 06:22:10PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 06:18:23 PM, Stefano Babic wrote:
> > > > > > On 24/01/2016 18:11, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > > > It is not clear when the wait_for_bit() will be applied, I am
> > > > > > > certain there will be another round for so. I do not want to
> > > > > > > wait for it and I don't see a reason why those patches should
> > > > > > > block this if the conversion can be done afterward.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Just wait for a while - if it takes too much, I reconsider to apply
> > > > > > this first and factorize wait_for_bit() in a follow-up patch.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I have waited for over a month and I fail to see a reason why patches
> > > > > which will be applied at uncertain point in the future shall block
> > > > > this patchset. The wait_for_bit() can be removed by a subsequent
> > > > > patch, it is already pulled out explicitly in the code, so I don't
> > > > > see a problem with applying this.
> > > > 
> > > > Did I miss something or isn't v4 of wait_for_bit good to go?
> > > 
> > > I don't really know if it's good to go, but this patch does not depend on
> > > it in any way. A subsequent patch can drop the wait_for_bit() from here,
> > > it's the same as the wait_for_bit() in dwc2 and other wait_for_bit()
> > > anywhere else, but I don't see a reason why this patch should not be
> > > applied now.
> > > 
> > > If I follow the logic in this thread, it would also be possible to say
> > > that this patch should wait until Eric submits the MX6S DDR support for
> > > example. We could indefinitelly wait for new and new stuff which might
> > > possibly block this.
> > 
> > Why don't you ack/test/review the wait_for_bit series and post a
> > follow-up to this one that uses the common function, which can be
> > squashed into the original and then this gets picked up?
> 
> Why ? I can send subsequent patch which removes the duplicate wait_for_bit()
> from this code once the wait_for_bit series is applied. I don't see a problem
> with that and the wait_for_bit() being so explicitly pulled out from the code
> is done with that in mind. But that does not block this patch from being applied 
> now. Does it?

If I tell you I'm probably going to have the wait_for_bit stuff applied
before the next imx PR is ready... ?

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20160124/d729d4cb/attachment.sig>