Hi Tom, [sorry I wrote this yesterday and didn't send]
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > [take 2 for me, gmail defaults to reply not reply-all] > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Simon Glass <s...@google.com> wrote: > >> Hi Tom, >> >> I see quite a lot of non-x86 patches in my todo list - does that mean >> that I should pick them up if I am happy with them, or just assign >> them back to you once I've taken a look? > > For stuff you've posted, yes, you can either toss it back to me, toss > it into a branch in u-boot-x86.git or toss it into a patchwork bundle > and hand 'em back to me. > >> I'm keen to get the sandbox fs and memory stuff in fairly early if >> possible, since I fear breakages and the longer people have to test >> the better. No one has screamed about map_sysmem() but I'm not sure if >> anyone noticed. So I could pull these in, build and send a pull if >> that suits? Perhaps one series at a time.... Also if Mike is having a >> break should I pull in the SPI ones assigned to me? Well sandbox fs and memory stuff are in thank you. So far I haven't heard of any breakages, but it is early days. > > In general I've tried to skim patches at least, and will give things > one more read over when it comes back at me to pull in (however that > is). For trivial SPI stuff (more IDs, etc) yes. For the changes to > writing and output and so forth, keep those in a > separate request if nothing else. I will bring in the SPI stuff into a separate branch in the x86 and send you a pull. I will have to rebase and run a full build first though. > >> There is also buildman, and I'm not sure what to do about that. It >> would be nice to have some feedback if people have tried it - I have >> had a few private emails only. I think it's a great help, but it still >> has some rough edges. > > I still need to try that myself, sorry. Has anything changed from the > last series you posted? I have a few tweaks so I could send an updated patch. [..] >> Generic board is also a big change, but since it is sort-of parallel >> to existing code and only turned on on a board-by-board basis the risk >> is lower - it just need some weeks of review time IMO. > > Sounds good, thanks! And generic board is in also now, which is a big step. Thanks for all your effort on that. I am about to rev the verified boot series, and FIT image series base on feedback. Also, what is happening on the TPM side? I think we have all the pieces for making the TPM work properly in U-Boot, as previously discussed. Along with verified boot we have a pretty solid implementation now. Regards, Simon > > -- > Tom _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
