| Message ID | 20200119071050.16240-1-mrjoel@lixil.net |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Updates for ClearFog EEPROM | expand |
Hi Joel, On Sun, Jan 19 2020, Joel Johnson wrote: > This set of patches applies on top of https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1200324/, > based on testing using the static configuration fallback updates in a > related patch series. Thank you very much. I'm currently working on an updated series with some significant changes. These include rename of sys_eeprom to tlv_eeprom; move of TLV parse code to board/solidrun/common/; and support for TLV read in pre-relocation phase. I'll add your fixes where applicable. I hope to post v2 in the coming week. baruch > Joel Johnson (4): > cmd: sys_eeprom: add missing implicit header > cmd: sys_eeprom reflect I2C dependency in Kconfig > arm: mvebu: clearfog: don't set SPL misc > arm: mvebu: clearfog: fix compile w/o EEPROM > > board/solidrun/clearfog/clearfog.c | 26 +++++++++++++++----------- > cmd/Kconfig | 1 + > cmd/sys_eeprom.c | 1 + > configs/clearfog_defconfig | 1 - > 4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
On 2020-01-19 00:22, Baruch Siach wrote: > Hi Joel, > > On Sun, Jan 19 2020, Joel Johnson wrote: >> This set of patches applies on top of >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1200324/, >> based on testing using the static configuration fallback updates in a >> related patch series. > > Thank you very much. > > I'm currently working on an updated series with some significant > changes. These include rename of sys_eeprom to tlv_eeprom; move of TLV > parse code to board/solidrun/common/; and support for TLV read in > pre-relocation phase. I'll add your fixes where applicable. > > I hope to post v2 in the coming week. > > baruch Sounds good, thanks! I'm also getting ready to shoot out a V2 of my static ClearFog Base support which based on prior review I've rebased on your run-time config series. If it works for you, I'll go ahead and still send that out for review, modulo your further changes. Are you expecting the TLV/EEPROM change updates to be included in time for the current merge window? Joel
Hi Joel, On Sun, Jan 19 2020, Joel Johnson wrote: > On 2020-01-19 00:22, Baruch Siach wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 19 2020, Joel Johnson wrote: >>> This set of patches applies on top of >>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1200324/, >>> based on testing using the static configuration fallback updates in a >>> related patch series. >> >> Thank you very much. >> >> I'm currently working on an updated series with some significant >> changes. These include rename of sys_eeprom to tlv_eeprom; move of TLV >> parse code to board/solidrun/common/; and support for TLV read in >> pre-relocation phase. I'll add your fixes where applicable. >> >> I hope to post v2 in the coming week. >> >> baruch > > Sounds good, thanks! I'm also getting ready to shoot out a V2 of my static > ClearFog Base support which based on prior review I've rebased on your > run-time config series. If it works for you, I'll go ahead and still send that > out for review, modulo your further changes. Are you expecting the TLV/EEPROM > change updates to be included in time for the current merge window? I hope to have TLV EEPROM ready for v2020.04. baruch
On 2020-01-19 01:41, Baruch Siach wrote: > Hi Joel, > > On Sun, Jan 19 2020, Joel Johnson wrote: >> On 2020-01-19 00:22, Baruch Siach wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 19 2020, Joel Johnson wrote: >>>> This set of patches applies on top of >>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1200324/, >>>> based on testing using the static configuration fallback updates in >>>> a >>>> related patch series. >>> >>> Thank you very much. >>> >>> I'm currently working on an updated series with some significant >>> changes. These include rename of sys_eeprom to tlv_eeprom; move of >>> TLV >>> parse code to board/solidrun/common/; and support for TLV read in >>> pre-relocation phase. I'll add your fixes where applicable. >>> >>> I hope to post v2 in the coming week. >>> >>> baruch >> >> Sounds good, thanks! I'm also getting ready to shoot out a V2 of my >> static >> ClearFog Base support which based on prior review I've rebased on your >> run-time config series. If it works for you, I'll go ahead and still >> send that >> out for review, modulo your further changes. Are you expecting the >> TLV/EEPROM >> change updates to be included in time for the current merge window? > > I hope to have TLV EEPROM ready for v2020.04. > > baruch Hmm, I was hoping to have the static config for ClearFog Base merged in the current merge window, so just to be clear is that what you're targeting by v2020.04 as well? With my recent rebasing, I believe I made the changes compatible between static and runtime configuration, but it's less important what order they're applied in - i.e. I can rebase again back on master and retain the alignment. Perhaps it would be possible to merge the static changes and then update the static config entries' help text with a subsequent merge of your runtime work? Joel
Hi Joel, On Sun, Jan 19 2020, Joel Johnson wrote: > On 2020-01-19 01:41, Baruch Siach wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 19 2020, Joel Johnson wrote: >>> On 2020-01-19 00:22, Baruch Siach wrote: >>>> On Sun, Jan 19 2020, Joel Johnson wrote: >>>>> This set of patches applies on top of >>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1200324/, >>>>> based on testing using the static configuration fallback updates in a >>>>> related patch series. >>>> >>>> Thank you very much. >>>> >>>> I'm currently working on an updated series with some significant >>>> changes. These include rename of sys_eeprom to tlv_eeprom; move of TLV >>>> parse code to board/solidrun/common/; and support for TLV read in >>>> pre-relocation phase. I'll add your fixes where applicable. >>>> >>>> I hope to post v2 in the coming week. >>>> >>>> baruch >>> >>> Sounds good, thanks! I'm also getting ready to shoot out a V2 of my static >>> ClearFog Base support which based on prior review I've rebased on your >>> run-time config series. If it works for you, I'll go ahead and still send >>> that >>> out for review, modulo your further changes. Are you expecting the >>> TLV/EEPROM >>> change updates to be included in time for the current merge window? >> >> I hope to have TLV EEPROM ready for v2020.04. > > Hmm, I was hoping to have the static config for ClearFog Base merged in the > current merge window, so just to be clear is that what you're targeting by > v2020.04 as well? Yes. Code merged in this merge windows will appear in the next release which is v2020.04. I have just posted the updated series with your fixes squashed in, sometimes in a different form (like the non CMD_TLV_EEPROM build fix). > With my recent rebasing, I believe I made the changes compatible between > static and runtime configuration, but it's less important what order they're > applied in - i.e. I can rebase again back on master and retain the > alignment. Perhaps it would be possible to merge the static changes and then > update the static config entries' help text with a subsequent merge of your > runtime work? I'm not sure what you mean hear. baruch
On 2020-01-20 05:25, Baruch Siach wrote: > Hi Joel, > > On Sun, Jan 19 2020, Joel Johnson wrote: >> On 2020-01-19 01:41, Baruch Siach wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 19 2020, Joel Johnson wrote: >>>> On 2020-01-19 00:22, Baruch Siach wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Jan 19 2020, Joel Johnson wrote: >>>>>> This set of patches applies on top of >>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1200324/, >>>>>> based on testing using the static configuration fallback updates >>>>>> in a >>>>>> related patch series. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you very much. >>>>> >>>>> I'm currently working on an updated series with some significant >>>>> changes. These include rename of sys_eeprom to tlv_eeprom; move of >>>>> TLV >>>>> parse code to board/solidrun/common/; and support for TLV read in >>>>> pre-relocation phase. I'll add your fixes where applicable. >>>>> >>>>> I hope to post v2 in the coming week. >>>>> >>>>> baruch >>>> >>>> Sounds good, thanks! I'm also getting ready to shoot out a V2 of my >>>> static >>>> ClearFog Base support which based on prior review I've rebased on >>>> your >>>> run-time config series. If it works for you, I'll go ahead and still >>>> send >>>> that >>>> out for review, modulo your further changes. Are you expecting the >>>> TLV/EEPROM >>>> change updates to be included in time for the current merge window? >>> >>> I hope to have TLV EEPROM ready for v2020.04. >> >> Hmm, I was hoping to have the static config for ClearFog Base merged >> in the >> current merge window, so just to be clear is that what you're >> targeting by >> v2020.04 as well? > > Yes. Code merged in this merge windows will appear in the next release > which is v2020.04. > > I have just posted the updated series with your fixes squashed in, > sometimes in a different form (like the non CMD_TLV_EEPROM build fix). Sounds great, I'll get my static config series updated against your updates runtime detection series, and after a few days post the update, pending any other comments on the v2 series. >> With my recent rebasing, I believe I made the changes compatible >> between >> static and runtime configuration, but it's less important what order >> they're >> applied in - i.e. I can rebase again back on master and retain the >> alignment. Perhaps it would be possible to merge the static changes >> and then >> update the static config entries' help text with a subsequent merge of >> your >> runtime work? > > I'm not sure what you mean hear. > > baruch Just that if your TLC update wasn't available for the current merge window I may want to request merging my static changes first instead of the other way around. Since you clarified your schedule and posted the updated series, it no longer matters. Joel
Hi Joel, On 19.01.20 08:10, Joel Johnson wrote: > > This set of patches applies on top of https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1200324/, > based on testing using the static configuration fallback updates in a > related patch series. > > > Joel Johnson (4): > cmd: sys_eeprom: add missing implicit header > cmd: sys_eeprom reflect I2C dependency in Kconfig > arm: mvebu: clearfog: don't set SPL misc > arm: mvebu: clearfog: fix compile w/o EEPROM > > board/solidrun/clearfog/clearfog.c | 26 +++++++++++++++----------- > cmd/Kconfig | 1 + > cmd/sys_eeprom.c | 1 + > configs/clearfog_defconfig | 1 - > 4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) Is it correct to assume, that this patchset is superseded by the Baruch's work? Can it be dropped? Thanks, Stefan
Hi Stefan, On Wed, Apr 15 2020, Stefan Roese wrote: > On 19.01.20 08:10, Joel Johnson wrote: >> >> This set of patches applies on top of https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1200324/, >> based on testing using the static configuration fallback updates in a >> related patch series. >> >> >> Joel Johnson (4): >> cmd: sys_eeprom: add missing implicit header >> cmd: sys_eeprom reflect I2C dependency in Kconfig >> arm: mvebu: clearfog: don't set SPL misc >> arm: mvebu: clearfog: fix compile w/o EEPROM >> >> board/solidrun/clearfog/clearfog.c | 26 +++++++++++++++----------- >> cmd/Kconfig | 1 + >> cmd/sys_eeprom.c | 1 + >> configs/clearfog_defconfig | 1 - >> 4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > Is it correct to assume, that this patchset is superseded by the > Baruch's work? Can it be dropped? Which work are you referring to? The text quoted above specifically mentions dependency on my patch series adding auto detection based on EEPROM data. So as I understand these patches are still useful. Joel, correct me if I am wrong. baruch -- http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{= - baruch@tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -
Hi Baruch, On 16.04.20 14:22, Baruch Siach wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > On Wed, Apr 15 2020, Stefan Roese wrote: >> On 19.01.20 08:10, Joel Johnson wrote: >>> >>> This set of patches applies on top of https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1200324/, >>> based on testing using the static configuration fallback updates in a >>> related patch series. >>> >>> >>> Joel Johnson (4): >>> cmd: sys_eeprom: add missing implicit header >>> cmd: sys_eeprom reflect I2C dependency in Kconfig >>> arm: mvebu: clearfog: don't set SPL misc >>> arm: mvebu: clearfog: fix compile w/o EEPROM >>> >>> board/solidrun/clearfog/clearfog.c | 26 +++++++++++++++----------- >>> cmd/Kconfig | 1 + >>> cmd/sys_eeprom.c | 1 + >>> configs/clearfog_defconfig | 1 - >>> 4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >> >> Is it correct to assume, that this patchset is superseded by the >> Baruch's work? Can it be dropped? > > Which work are you referring to? > > The text quoted above specifically mentions dependency on my patch > series adding auto detection based on EEPROM data. So as I understand > these patches are still useful. > > Joel, correct me if I am wrong. If these are still useful, then please rebase and resubmit. I've dropped the patches in the meantime from patchwork as they didn't apply clean any more. Thanks, Stefan
On 2020-04-16 06:38, Stefan Roese wrote: > Hi Baruch, > > On 16.04.20 14:22, Baruch Siach wrote: >> Hi Stefan, >> >> On Wed, Apr 15 2020, Stefan Roese wrote: >>> On 19.01.20 08:10, Joel Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> This set of patches applies on top of >>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1200324/, >>>> based on testing using the static configuration fallback updates in >>>> a >>>> related patch series. >>>> >>>> >>>> Joel Johnson (4): >>>> cmd: sys_eeprom: add missing implicit header >>>> cmd: sys_eeprom reflect I2C dependency in Kconfig >>>> arm: mvebu: clearfog: don't set SPL misc >>>> arm: mvebu: clearfog: fix compile w/o EEPROM >>>> >>>> board/solidrun/clearfog/clearfog.c | 26 >>>> +++++++++++++++----------- >>>> cmd/Kconfig | 1 + >>>> cmd/sys_eeprom.c | 1 + >>>> configs/clearfog_defconfig | 1 - >>>> 4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >>> >>> Is it correct to assume, that this patchset is superseded by the >>> Baruch's work? Can it be dropped? >> >> Which work are you referring to? >> >> The text quoted above specifically mentions dependency on my patch >> series adding auto detection based on EEPROM data. So as I understand >> these patches are still useful. >> >> Joel, correct me if I am wrong. > > If these are still useful, then please rebase and resubmit. I've > dropped > the patches in the meantime from patchwork as they didn't apply clean > any more. > > Thanks, > Stefan Dropping these are fine, it was indeed superseded. Baruch, you'd included a reworked version of these into a later version of your patchset. As I recall, there were issues at the time with disabling EEPROM support which this, and the eventual merged version of your series, resolved. Joel