Patchwork [U-Boot,GIT,PULL] Pull request: u-boot-imx

On 10/18/2011 08:12 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> 
> Weird: these two commits:
> 
>>        misc:pmic:max8998 MAX8998 support at a new PMIC driver.
>>        misc:pmic:samsung Enable PMIC driver at GONI target
> 
> are attributed to you

..and they should not be...

> whereas in your branch they are attributed to
> Łukasz Majewski --

That is correct - everything in the branch seems correct, but the
generated pull-request is wrong - weird ! I have already tried to
cherry-pick each single patch and then to check, but at the end I got
always a wrong pull-request list. I have supposed that is related to UTF
character in Łukasz name, but I am probably wrong.

> plus a third one not mentioned above. I did a git
> request-pull on my side, and find the following entries:
> 
> Stefano Babic (15):
>       MX51: vision2: Set global macros
>       misc: pmic: Freescale PMIC switches to generic PMIC driver
>       MX5: vision2: use new pmic driver
>       RTC: Switch mc13783 to generic pmic code
>       MX3: qong: use new pmic driver
>       MX5: efikamx/efikasb: use new pmic driver
>       misc: pmic: use I2C_SET_BUS in pmic I2C
>       misc: pmic: addI2C  support to pmic_fsl driver
>       MX35: mx35pdk: use new pmic driver
>       MX5: mx51evk: use new pmic driver
>       MX5: mx53evk: use new pmic driver
>       MX31: mx31_litekit: use new pmic driver
>       MX31: mx31ads: use new pmic driver
> (the next two commits are missing in your list)
>       MX31: mx31pdk: use new pmic driver
>       misc: pmic: drop old Freescale's pmic driver
> 
> Łukasz Majewski (3):
> (the next commit is missing in your list)
>       misc:pmic:core New generic PMIC driver
> (the next two commits are misattributed in your list)
>       misc:pmic:max8998 MAX8998 support at a new PMIC driver.
>       misc:pmic:samsung Enable PMIC driver at GONI target
> 

This is correct. It is exactly what I wanted...

Meanwhile (and I do neither touched the u-boot-imx, nor updated my PC),
git pull-request delivers today the right list:

The following changes since commit e36544d37385c4a4b525e18326feb3664d2268fa:

  omap: overo: Disable pull-ups on camera PCLK, HS and VS signals
(2011-10-14 22:15:13 +0200)

are available in the git repository at:
  git://www.denx.de/git/u-boot-imx.git master

Fabio Estevam (2):
      mx31pdk: Remove unneeded config
      imx: fix coding style

Helmut Raiger (1):
      mx31: provide readable WEIM CS accessor

Marek Vasut (1):
      I2C: Add i2c_get/set_speed() to mxc_i2c.c

Stefano Babic (15):
      MX51: vision2: Set global macros
      misc: pmic: Freescale PMIC switches to generic PMIC driver
      MX5: vision2: use new pmic driver
      RTC: Switch mc13783 to generic pmic code
      MX3: qong: use new pmic driver
      MX5: efikamx/efikasb: use new pmic driver
      misc: pmic: use I2C_SET_BUS in pmic I2C
      misc: pmic: addI2C  support to pmic_fsl driver
      MX35: mx35pdk: use new pmic driver
      MX5: mx51evk: use new pmic driver
      MX5: mx53evk: use new pmic driver
      MX31: mx31_litekit: use new pmic driver
      MX31: mx31ads: use new pmic driver
      MX31: mx31pdk: use new pmic driver
      misc: pmic: drop old Freescale's pmic driver

Łukasz Majewski (3):
      misc:pmic:core New generic PMIC driver
      misc:pmic:max8998 MAX8998 support at a new PMIC driver.
      misc:pmic:samsung Enable PMIC driver at GONI target


> Note that I find the same list of modifications as stated below, which
> implies that only the attribution list above is incorrect.
> 
>>   arch/arm/cpu/arm1136/mx31/generic.c         |   11 ++
>>   arch/arm/cpu/arm1136/mx31/timer.c           |   23 ++-
>>   arch/arm/cpu/arm1136/mx35/generic.c         |    2 +-
>>   arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mx25/generic.c       |  110 +++++++-------
>>   arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mx25/reset.c         |    2 +-
>>   arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mx25/timer.c         |   16 +-
>>   arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mx27/reset.c         |    2 +-

Yes, that is correct.

> 
> Can you double-check this u-boot-imx/master branch?

Everything seems correct, and today even a correct pull-request is
generated...no idea really why the list was wrong !

thanks,
Stefano