On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 06:10:27AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 at 10:04, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 09:25:25AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 14:53, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 02:44:12PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 14:31, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 02:26:39PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 14:06, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 01:06:25PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This series adds a cover-coverage check to CI for Binman. The > > > > > > > > > iMX8 tests > > > > > > > > > are still not completed, so a work-around is included for > > > > > > > > > those. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few fixes are included for some other problems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jiaxun Yang (1): > > > > > > > > > binman: Workaround lz4 cli padding in test cases > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simon Glass (6): > > > > > > > > > binman: Exclude dist-packages and site-packages > > > > > > > > > binman: Drop GetRootSkipAtStart() > > > > > > > > > binman: fit: Drop unused code > > > > > > > > > binman: Drop algo check in CheckSetHashValue() > > > > > > > > > binman: Workaround missing test coverage > > > > > > > > > CI: Run code-coverage test for Binman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While we likely need Jiaxun's fix in order to be able to update > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > Ubuntu 24.04, the series itself doesn't apply to -next, please > > > > > > > > rebase if > > > > > > > > you intend for this to be in mainline, thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, would you able to pick this series up? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=444576 > > > > > > > > > > > > It also doesn't apply. You should really put together a PR, against > > > > > > next. > > > > > > > > > > Oh, it needs another patch anyway. I'll send a v2. Once that is in I > > > > > can rework this one. > > > > > > > > Again, it would be helpful if you would send a PR and always base your > > > > patches on the appropriate upstream branch. > > > > > > I understand that, and I'm happy to rebase / resend when you are ready > > > to apply. I'd like to keep the diff as small as we can. But I don't > > > think it should hold up reviews, otherwise we're just going to diverge > > > further. When you reject patches for your tree I typically apply them > > > to my tree in the hope that they might find favour in future. > > > > I think you've got this backwards still. > > > > > For the skip-at-start series I sent a series, which you have seen. > > > > Yes, and what blocked them to start with is they defaulted to your tree > > and not mainline. > > I can send a pull request for things, but your tree is missing things > and that seems to be growing over time.
By definition your downstream fork is missing things. That's on you to fix, not me. > As you have seen, I sent [1] to test the water so we'll see how it fares. That's not a very kind way to put it, given that I've only stopped applying your various series once they don't apply to upstream. And since that's actually fixing platforms and not just tidying up code I'll likely apply that later today. > > > Speaking of patches, the PXE series seems to have got lost. It is > > > 'changes requested' but I'm not sure what changes are needed. > > > > The changes requested was that it breaks lwIP + tftp. You asked that I > > ignore that since it wasn't failing in public CI, I said it was failing > > in my CI. I then noticed that it should have failed in public CI (and > > likely was on Azure, but that's often overloaded enough I cancel runs > > when I see failures elsewhere). So I then fixed public CI so that the > > lwIP platforms there too should fail. > > Well I did offer to add a test in my lab...I'll take another look at some > point. Well, it's blocked until it doesn't break platforms. > > > I also just found the membuf thing was never applied. > > > > Was that the one where Rasmus asked you to do it differently? > > Yes and I spent quite a bit of time investigating, and replied, but > didn't see any further response. The power-of-two idea is too > restrictive and anyway is beyond the scope of my series which is > mostly to add some tests and align the naming better with U-Boot. I > did suggest some follow-on ideas. Anyway, I am wanting to use it in > future series, so it would be good to apply it. No, I'm not going to apply something where the feedback starts with "No, that is the worst of all worlds". -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
