| Message ID | 20230801093706.1347928-1-felix.moessbauer@siemens.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Rework and extend u-boot-script for DT overlays | expand |
On Tue, 2023-08-01 at 09:37 +0000, 'Felix Moessbauer' via isar-users wrote: > This series fixes a critical bug in the generated boot.scr u-boot > script (p1) and adds support to use the builtin device dtbs of u- > boot. > Finally, the nanopi-neo target is switched over to the u-boot builtin > DT (instead of the kernel DT), as these are compiled with symbol > information which are needed to apply DT overlays. > > @Maintainer: Feel free to cherry-pick p1 in case the other changes > need some discussions. > > Felix Moessbauer > Siemens AG > > Felix Moessbauer (4): > fix(u-boot-script): use correct ramdisk size > refactor loading of DT overlays in uboot > u-boot-script: add support to use builtin dt > use builtin DT for nanopi-neo target > > .../lib/wic/canned-wks/nanopi-neo.wks.in | 4 +-- > .../u-boot-script/files/u-boot-script | 3 +++ > .../u-boot-script/files/update-u-boot-script | 25 ++++++++++++----- > -- > .../lib/wic/plugins/source/rootfs-u-boot.py | 3 +++ > 4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.34.1 > Applied to next, thanks.
On 08.08.23 09:05, Uladzimir Bely wrote: > On Tue, 2023-08-01 at 09:37 +0000, 'Felix Moessbauer' via isar-users > wrote: >> This series fixes a critical bug in the generated boot.scr u-boot >> script (p1) and adds support to use the builtin device dtbs of u- >> boot. >> Finally, the nanopi-neo target is switched over to the u-boot builtin >> DT (instead of the kernel DT), as these are compiled with symbol >> information which are needed to apply DT overlays. >> >> @Maintainer: Feel free to cherry-pick p1 in case the other changes >> need some discussions. >> >> Felix Moessbauer >> Siemens AG >> >> Felix Moessbauer (4): >> fix(u-boot-script): use correct ramdisk size >> refactor loading of DT overlays in uboot >> u-boot-script: add support to use builtin dt >> use builtin DT for nanopi-neo target >> >> .../lib/wic/canned-wks/nanopi-neo.wks.in | 4 +-- >> .../u-boot-script/files/u-boot-script | 3 +++ >> .../u-boot-script/files/update-u-boot-script | 25 ++++++++++++----- >> -- >> .../lib/wic/plugins/source/rootfs-u-boot.py | 3 +++ >> 4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> -- >> 2.34.1 >> > > Applied to next, thanks. > Revert 2-4, please, there are many open issues. Jan
On Tue, 2023-08-08 at 12:24 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 08.08.23 09:05, Uladzimir Bely wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-08-01 at 09:37 +0000, 'Felix Moessbauer' via isar- > > users > > wrote: > > > This series fixes a critical bug in the generated boot.scr u-boot > > > script (p1) and adds support to use the builtin device dtbs of u- > > > boot. > > > Finally, the nanopi-neo target is switched over to the u-boot > > > builtin > > > DT (instead of the kernel DT), as these are compiled with symbol > > > information which are needed to apply DT overlays. > > > > > > @Maintainer: Feel free to cherry-pick p1 in case the other > > > changes > > > need some discussions. > > > > > > Felix Moessbauer > > > Siemens AG > > > > > > Felix Moessbauer (4): > > > fix(u-boot-script): use correct ramdisk size > > > refactor loading of DT overlays in uboot > > > u-boot-script: add support to use builtin dt > > > use builtin DT for nanopi-neo target > > > > > > .../lib/wic/canned-wks/nanopi-neo.wks.in | 4 +-- > > > .../u-boot-script/files/u-boot-script | 3 +++ > > > .../u-boot-script/files/update-u-boot-script | 25 ++++++++++++- > > > ---- > > > -- > > > .../lib/wic/plugins/source/rootfs-u-boot.py | 3 +++ > > > 4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > > > -- > > > 2.34.1 > > > > > > > Applied to next, thanks. > > > > Revert 2-4, please, there are many open issues. > > Jan > Would it be OK just to move "origin/next" three commits down (e.g., force push), or these should be separate revert patch(es)?
On 2023-08-09 08:40, Uladzimir Bely wrote: > On Tue, 2023-08-08 at 12:24 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > Revert 2-4, please, there are many open issues. > > Would it be OK just to move "origin/next" three commits down (e.g., > force push), or these should be separate revert patch(es)? No need to force-push, we will revert but we'd like to have the discussion on the list why some patches should be applied separately or what the open issues are. With kind regards, Baurzhan