From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ulf Samuelsson Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:05:24 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] AT91 NAND om AT91SAM9260EK References: <20070211234520.9F54135265F@atlas.denx.de><021001c74e3c$ba5a68c0$01c4af0a@Glamdring><1defaf580702120718x1bfd5b64j538996eb958b33e3@mail.gmail.com><008501c74ed5$8f09c050$1f00d3c1@atmel.com> <1defaf580702121137s445ae11fp58835968a6dbf44f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <022301c74ee7$630fcbe0$1f00d3c1@atmel.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de > On 2/12/07, Ulf Samuelsson wrote: >> > On 2/12/07, Ulf Samuelsson wrote: >> >> >> It really does not make sense to test his patches only >> >> >> on boards which does not use the dataflash. >> >> > >> >> > If that's all he has, then he has no other choice. >> >> >> >> He has always the choice of realizing that he maybe should >> >> leave this possible improvement to someone capable of testing it >> >> and concentrate on stuff which he can test. >> > >> > Yeah, that's a nice attitude. "Go away, we don't want your patches." >> > Without even looking at them? >> >> I dont want patches that stops U-boot from functioning, that is correct. >> If someone creates a patch which will improve functionality, >> tries it out on a reasonable number of targets and then it >> later turns out that there are some problems in corner cases, >> I will not call for a public hanging. > > I do agree with this -- all changes should be tested by _someone_. > However, I don't think we should categorically reject all patches that > haven't been tested by the author. If someone sees something which > looks wrong, or an opportunity for optimization, not having the board > in question shouldn't stop him from submitting a patch IMO. The board > maintainer (or cpu/arch/subsystem maintainer, depending on the code in > question) may test it himself, or send it to someone else for testing. > > I disagree with your requirement that the author and the tester > _always_ has to be the same person. Having done thorough testing, > benchmarking, etc. and providing lots of nice numbers will of course > increase the chances of acceptance, but none of it is an absolute > requirement IMO. > I do not require that the author and the tester is the same person, If someone wants to fix something, it is perfectly OK that someone else tests the patch. What I have seen of the dataflash interface discussion, there is no plan to test the dataflash, the goal was to get rid of the dataflash from the memory commands, write something which appeared to replace the dataflash command, ensure it compiled and submit that. And since the current interface is undesirable, those patches would get a fast acceptance This plan leaves dataflash users to sort out the mess and with the current time to get patches approved, at91 support would be broken for a long time. Best Regards Ulf Samuelsson ulf at atmel.com Atmel Nordic AB Mail: Box 2033, 174 02 Sundbyberg, Sweden Visit: Kavalleriv?gen 24, 174 58 Sundbyberg, Sweden Phone +46 (8) 441 54 22 Fax +46 (8) 441 54 29 GSM +46 (706) 22 44 57 Technical support when I am not available: AT89 C51 Applications Group: mailto:micro.hotline at nto.atmel.com AT90 AVR Applications Group: mailto:avr at atmel.com AT91 ARM Applications Group: mailto:at91support at atmel.com FPSLIC Application Group: mailto:fpslic at atmel.com Best AVR link: www.avrfreaks.net