Hi, On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 at 06:23, Quentin Schulz <quentin.sch...@cherry.de> wrote: > > Hi Mattijs, Simon, > > On 10/1/24 2:07 PM, Mattijs Korpershoek wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > > On mar., oct. 01, 2024 at 05:18, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 at 14:48, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> This series attempts to migrate all sunxi boards to use standard boot, > >>> along with a text environment. > >>> > >>> Changes in v2: > >>> - Add new patch to resolve BOOTSTD->BLK recursion with Kconfig > >>> - Put the FEL bootmeth before all other global bootmeths > >>> - Convert the other DISTRO_DEFAULTS in the Kconfig too > >>> - Keep BOOTCMD_SUNXI_COMPAT > >>> - Keep bootcmd_sunxi_compat if OLD_SUNXI_KERNEL_COMPAT is enabled > >>> > >>> Simon Glass (8): > >>> blk: Make functions available unconditionally > >>> bootstd: Avoid calling unavailable block functions > >>> bootstd: Avoid depending on BLK > >>> sunxi: Add a bootmeth for FEL > >>> sunxi: Move to bootstd > >>> sunxi: Drop old distro boot variables > >>> env: Provide a work-around for unquoting fdtfile > >>> sunxi: Move to text environment > >>> > >>> Makefile | 1 + > >>> arch/arm/Kconfig | 10 +- > >>> board/sunxi/sunxi.env | 152 +++++++++++ > >>> boot/Kconfig | 16 +- > >>> boot/Makefile | 1 + > >>> boot/bootdev-uclass.c | 3 + > >>> boot/bootmeth_fel.c | 81 ++++++ > >>> .../gardena-smart-gateway-mt7688_defconfig | 1 + > >>> doc/usage/environment.rst | 12 + > >>> include/blk.h | 9 +- > >>> include/configs/sunxi-common.h | 238 ------------------ > >>> 11 files changed, 278 insertions(+), 246 deletions(-) > >>> create mode 100644 board/sunxi/sunxi.env > >>> create mode 100644 boot/bootmeth_fel.c > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 2.34.1 > >>> > >> > >> I'm just checking on this series. Are there any comments, or can it be > >> applied? > > > > Quentin mentioned a typo in patch 3/8, see: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/1f963aa8-948a-4657-9f1b-a3bc38df4...@cherry.de/ > > > > Well, is it really a typo or was this still a WIP patch that made it to > the ML somehow? That was basically the "question" or concern about "wip" > appearing in the commit log :)
It was an ex-wip patch which I modified and failed to remove the 'wip'. It was fixed in v3[1] (which I now see that I should have replied to here) Regards, SImon [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20240901222734.462334-4-...@chromium.org/
