| Message ID | Ydmn7bz+zpXgZ4EE@ryzen.fritz.box |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add MNT Reform 2 board support | expand |
Hi, is there anything I can do to help get attention on this patchset? I'm now regularly rebasing the patchset and adjusting it to all the changes that happen in-tree to the other boards to keep the patchset compiling and working. Right now I'd have to send a v5 to remove a single define that's now obsolete and hence breaks compilation, but I'm not sure it's worth sending it out if there's gonna be a v6 and v7 for another rebase soon anyway. Cheers, Patrick On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 04:04:14PM +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote: > The MNT Reform 2 is a modular DIY laptop. In its initial version it > is based on the BoundaryDevices i.MX8MQ SoM. Some parts have been > lifted from BoundaryDevices official U-Boot downstream project. > > This U-Boot patchset supports the serial console, the SD card and > eMMC, Gigabit Ethernet and USB. > > Changes since v3: > - Adjusted to Binman changes in main branch. > - Cleaned up environment variables akin to i.MX8MM. > - Added vendor-prefix to device tree filename. > - Provided ramdisk_addr_r. > Changes since v2: > - Switched to Binman. > Changes since v1: > - Synced DTS with files in Linux git repo. > - Added support for USB host ports. > > Patrick Wildt (2): > arm: dts: imx8mq: add MNT Reform 2 > board: mntre: imx8mq: Add MNT Reform 2 board support > > arch/arm/dts/Makefile | 1 + > arch/arm/dts/imx8mq-mnt-reform2-u-boot.dtsi | 13 + > arch/arm/dts/imx8mq-mnt-reform2.dts | 214 ++++ > arch/arm/dts/imx8mq-nitrogen-som.dtsi | 275 +++++ > arch/arm/mach-imx/imx8m/Kconfig | 7 + > board/mntre/imx8mq_reform2/Kconfig | 15 + > board/mntre/imx8mq_reform2/MAINTAINERS | 7 + > board/mntre/imx8mq_reform2/Makefile | 12 + > board/mntre/imx8mq_reform2/imx8mq_reform2.c | 213 ++++ > board/mntre/imx8mq_reform2/lpddr4_timing.c | 1014 +++++++++++++++++ > .../mntre/imx8mq_reform2/lpddr4_timing_ch2.h | 95 ++ > board/mntre/imx8mq_reform2/spl.c | 260 +++++ > configs/imx8mq_reform2_defconfig | 85 ++ > include/configs/imx8mq_reform2.h | 108 ++ > 14 files changed, 2319 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 arch/arm/dts/imx8mq-mnt-reform2-u-boot.dtsi > create mode 100644 arch/arm/dts/imx8mq-mnt-reform2.dts > create mode 100644 arch/arm/dts/imx8mq-nitrogen-som.dtsi > create mode 100644 board/mntre/imx8mq_reform2/Kconfig > create mode 100644 board/mntre/imx8mq_reform2/MAINTAINERS > create mode 100644 board/mntre/imx8mq_reform2/Makefile > create mode 100644 board/mntre/imx8mq_reform2/imx8mq_reform2.c > create mode 100644 board/mntre/imx8mq_reform2/lpddr4_timing.c > create mode 100644 board/mntre/imx8mq_reform2/lpddr4_timing_ch2.h > create mode 100644 board/mntre/imx8mq_reform2/spl.c > create mode 100644 configs/imx8mq_reform2_defconfig > create mode 100644 include/configs/imx8mq_reform2.h > > -- > 2.34.1 >
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:29:50PM +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote: > Hi, > > is there anything I can do to help get attention on this patchset? Not a whole lot, sorry. The big hold up right now is that Stefano is out currently and that means a number of imx patches are still outstanding. > I'm now regularly rebasing the patchset and adjusting it to all the > changes that happen in-tree to the other boards to keep the patchset > compiling and working. > > Right now I'd have to send a v5 to remove a single define that's now > obsolete and hence breaks compilation, but I'm not sure it's worth > sending it out if there's gonna be a v6 and v7 for another rebase > soon anyway. Aside from what I just sent out in reply to Fabio's comment, it probably makes sense to hold off on reposting until Stefano is back.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 05:03:28PM -0500, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:29:50PM +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > is there anything I can do to help get attention on this patchset? > > Not a whole lot, sorry. The big hold up right now is that Stefano is > out currently and that means a number of imx patches are still > outstanding. > > > I'm now regularly rebasing the patchset and adjusting it to all the > > changes that happen in-tree to the other boards to keep the patchset > > compiling and working. > > > > Right now I'd have to send a v5 to remove a single define that's now > > obsolete and hence breaks compilation, but I'm not sure it's worth > > sending it out if there's gonna be a v6 and v7 for another rebase > > soon anyway. > > Aside from what I just sent out in reply to Fabio's comment, it probably > makes sense to hold off on reposting until Stefano is back. Thanks to both of you for the feedback! Cheers, Patrick