| Message ID | cover.1592315226.git.balaton@eik.bme.hu |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Mac Old World ROM experiment | expand |
Hello Mark, On Tue, 16 Jun 2020, BALATON Zoltan wrote: > v5: Rebased on master, added some more clean ups, CUDA i2c is still to > be sorted out, help with that is welcome. What about these patches? At least those that are finished (up to patch 9) could be merged. I've seen you sent a pull request but not including any of these. Will this need another rebase after your patches? If I rebase them will you consider merging them? (Otherwise I won't spend time with it.) Thanks, BALATON Zoltan > BALATON Zoltan (11): > mac_oldworld: Allow loading binary ROM image > mac_newworld: Allow loading binary ROM image > mac_oldworld: Drop a variable, use get_system_memory() directly > mac_oldworld: Drop some variables > grackle: Set revision in PCI config to match hardware > mac_oldworld: Rename ppc_heathrow_reset to ppc_heathrow_cpu_reset > mac_oldworld: Map macio to expected address at reset > mac_oldworld: Add machine ID register > macio: Add dummy screamer register area > WIP macio/cuda: Attempt to add i2c support > mac_oldworld: Add SPD data to cover RAM > > hw/misc/macio/cuda.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++- > hw/misc/macio/macio.c | 34 ++++++++++ > hw/pci-host/grackle.c | 2 +- > hw/ppc/mac.h | 15 ++++- > hw/ppc/mac_newworld.c | 22 +++--- > hw/ppc/mac_oldworld.c | 127 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > include/hw/misc/macio/cuda.h | 1 + > 7 files changed, 219 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) > >
On 26/06/2020 11:21, BALATON Zoltan wrote: > What about these patches? At least those that are finished (up to patch 9) could be > merged. I've seen you sent a pull request but not including any of these. Will this > need another rebase after your patches? If I rebase them will you consider merging > them? (Otherwise I won't spend time with it.) Ah sorry I missed the latest version of these. I'll take a quick look now. (BTW it seems the patches in your patchset have started appearing in a random order when sent to the list again?) ATB, Mark.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > On 26/06/2020 11:21, BALATON Zoltan wrote: >> What about these patches? At least those that are finished (up to patch 9) could be >> merged. I've seen you sent a pull request but not including any of these. Will this >> need another rebase after your patches? If I rebase them will you consider merging >> them? (Otherwise I won't spend time with it.) > > Ah sorry I missed the latest version of these. I'll take a quick look now. In case you missed that I've just sent the latest v6 version of the series with changes you've suggested and I made since. > (BTW it seems the patches in your patchset have started appearing in a random order > when sent to the list again?) I've noticed this too but don't know why that happens or what to do to prevent it. I submit these in one batch to my mail server which then seems to send it off simultaneously and may end up out of order. I've tried adding a 1 sec delay now but apparently that did not solve it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Regards, BALATON Zoltan