On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 07:46:56PM -0800, Sam Edwards wrote: > On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 9:55 PM Sam Edwards <cfswo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Long time no see, U-Boot folks! > > > > This patchset consists of various bug fixes and correctness improvements > > that > > I discovered while attempting to add first-class LLVM support to the build > > system. These patches are NOT related to LLVM support directly; rather, they > > address existing issues that should be resolved regardless of future > > changes. > > For the most part, the patches are mutually independent and can be reviewed > > and > > applied separately. If any patch is not suitable for merging now, feel free > > to > > skip it: I will incorporate feedback and revisit those changes as part of > > the > > upcoming LLVM support patchset. I'd like this patchset to be evaluated on > > its > > own merits, based on the current state of the code, without consideration > > for > > future LLVM support. > > > > Note that the issues addressed in this patchset do not occur when U-Boot is > > built using the GCC/GNU toolchain. These bugs seem to be specific to builds > > using other toolchains, like LLVM, and do not appear to affect users > > relying on > > GCC/GNU. Therefore, I see no need to rush these changes into the stable > > branch. > > > > Again, these patches are mostly independent/reorderable... > > ...except that: "arm: Add aligned-memory aliases to eabi_compat" > > ...depends on: "arm: Add __aeabi_memclr in eabi_compat" > > > > Warm regards, > > Sam > > Hi Tom, > > I noticed that all patches in this series have been marked 'Changes > Requested' on Patchwork. While some patches do need changes, this > series was intended as a set of independent submissions: each patch > can be accepted, rejected, or reordered without affecting the others. > Would it be possible to reconsider the remaining patches for review > without resending the series? > > I'd like to withdraw the following patches: > > - [06/17] arm: Use -mstrict-align when the MMU is off (Incorrect approach) > - [11/17] makefile: Fix symbol typo in binary_size_check (Will follow > Simon's suggestion for a more comprehensive fix across architectures > in a future submission) > > The feedback I've received so far was mostly requests for > clarification, which I believe I've addressed in my replies. Please > let me know if anything remains unclear or if further adjustments are > needed. > > Thank you so much for your time!
It's *really* hard to track parts of a series in that way. If they aren't intended to be applied all in one go, please post them individually as v2s. The clarifications likely mean a bit more rewording of the commit messages are in order. If it's really hard on your end to resend things, I can go and poke through the series (once Ilias has had time to do the reviews I see he promised). -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
