On Wednesday 06 May 2015 16:42:39 Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> [150506 01:53]: > > On Tuesday 05 May 2015 10:00:21 Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > * Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> [150505 09:41]: > > > > On Tuesday 05 May 2015 17:06:38 Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > * Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> [150505 07:55]: > > > > > > On Tuesday 05 May 2015 07:43:08 Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > > > * Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> [150505 03:56]: > > > > > > > > On Monday 04 May 2015 13:01:54 Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > > > > > For dropping the remaining omap3 legacy boot support, > > > > > > > > > we still have the following board-*.c files: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BOARD REASON NEEDED > > > > > > > > > board-ldp.c Still used in RMKs boot test > > > > > > > > > system board-omap3logic.c Getting a .dts file > > > > > > > > > for v4.2 board-omap3pandora.c Got a .dts file for > > > > > > > > > v4.1 board-rx51-*.c Needs /proc/atags > > > > > > > > > support for user space > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm hoping we can drop those for v4.3 merge window, > > > > > > > > > then keep the platform data around for one more merge > > > > > > > > > window in case of reverting needed, then drop the > > > > > > > > > platform data too for v4.4 if no issues needing > > > > > > > > > reverting are found. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds great. Has there been a conclusion about what to > > > > > > > > do for the rx51 /proc/atags support? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe we just need to enable /proc/atags also for > > > > > > > device tree based booting if CONFIG_ARM_ATAG_DTB_COMPAT. > > > > > > > Pali may have more info on that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then looks like Pali's two patches for showing the > > > > > > > revision are still pending in thread "[PATCH v2 0/2] ARM: > > > > > > > /proc/cpuinfo: DT: Add support for Revision": > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg401535.html > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I already sent all need patches to ML. But I did > > > > > > not check if you merged them or not. I did not get any new > > > > > > comments for them for a while and right now I do not have > > > > > > time for looking at it again. > > > > > > > > > > Oh OK, do you have link to the /proc/atags patch somewhere? > > > > > > > > > > Maybe Arnd and Nico can pick them up and sort out how we > > > > > should queue them with Russell? > > > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/26/648 > > > > > > Hmm looks like you should resend all your pending four patches > > > properly with the people mentioned above in Cc to the LAKML > > > and linux-omap.. Assuming something will happen to them when > > > the patches are buried into a middle of some old threads does > > > not work well.. Best to just follow das protokoll und whine and > > > follow up until the patches get merged :) > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Tony > > > > Now I resent "ARM: /proc/cpuinfo: DT: Add support for Revision" > > patches to MLs again without in-reply-to header. > > OK thanks. > > > Patches for /proc/atags I do not have currently in git format-patch > > mbox format, so cannot resent it right now... > > Well presumably you'll resend those once you find them then :) > > Regards, > > Tony Now I sent them. Now you (or anybody else) can review all 4 patches :-) -- Pali Rohár pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
