Hi Tom, On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 22:05:15 -0700, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Albert ARIBAUD > <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net> wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 21:28:15 +0200, Albert ARIBAUD > > <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net> wrote: > > > >> Under option -munaligned-access, gcc can perform local char > >> or 16-bit array initializations using misaligned native > >> accesses which will throw a data abort exception. Fix files > >> where these array initializations were unneeded, and for > >> files known to contain such initializations, enforce gcc > >> option -mno-unaligned-access. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net> > >> --- > > > > Tom, > > > > As per our discussion, this patch should be placed in u-boot/next > > right above the 2012-10 release commit. > > > > At this time, just after a git fech u-boot, I don't see the patch in > > next at all. > > > > Do you want me to prepare an ad hoc branch with this patch then the > > current content of u-boot/next, above v2012.10-rc3, so that you just > > have to git reset --hard your next on it? > > > > Amicalement, > > As the questions about our usage of rebasing in 'next' have shown, > it's not quite as cut and dry as I had hoped to rebase next at my whim > (and long term, that's a good thing I think). My plan tomorrow (or > today, depending on your local timezone) is to release v2012.10, apply > this v6 patch and then bring in next to master, see that everything is > still building and go from there. Fine with me, thanks! P.S. Until this release, I'd worked under the assumption that next could be more freely rebased than master is. From now on, I will follow the same principle for next as for master, i.e. not rebase but merge (possibly ff) from other and only rollback if required and appropriate. Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
