From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 18:25:58 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] arm: imx6: Add DDR3 calibration code for MX6 Q/D/DL In-Reply-To: <20160124233000.GY3359@bill-the-cat> References: <1450276807-8960-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de> <201601250000.05359.marex@denx.de> <20160124233000.GY3359@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <201601311825.58774.marex@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 12:30:00 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 12:00:05AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 11:21:51 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:07:30PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 08:33:57 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 06:22:10PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 06:18:23 PM, Stefano Babic wrote: > > > > > > > On 24/01/2016 18:11, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > > > > It is not clear when the wait_for_bit() will be applied, I am > > > > > > > > certain there will be another round for so. I do not want to > > > > > > > > wait for it and I don't see a reason why those patches should > > > > > > > > block this if the conversion can be done afterward. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just wait for a while - if it takes too much, I reconsider to > > > > > > > apply this first and factorize wait_for_bit() in a follow-up > > > > > > > patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have waited for over a month and I fail to see a reason why > > > > > > patches which will be applied at uncertain point in the future > > > > > > shall block this patchset. The wait_for_bit() can be removed by > > > > > > a subsequent patch, it is already pulled out explicitly in the > > > > > > code, so I don't see a problem with applying this. > > > > > > > > > > Did I miss something or isn't v4 of wait_for_bit good to go? > > > > > > > > I don't really know if it's good to go, but this patch does not > > > > depend on it in any way. A subsequent patch can drop the > > > > wait_for_bit() from here, it's the same as the wait_for_bit() in > > > > dwc2 and other wait_for_bit() anywhere else, but I don't see a > > > > reason why this patch should not be applied now. > > > > > > > > If I follow the logic in this thread, it would also be possible to > > > > say that this patch should wait until Eric submits the MX6S DDR > > > > support for example. We could indefinitelly wait for new and new > > > > stuff which might possibly block this. > > > > > > Why don't you ack/test/review the wait_for_bit series and post a > > > follow-up to this one that uses the common function, which can be > > > squashed into the original and then this gets picked up? > > > > Why ? I can send subsequent patch which removes the duplicate > > wait_for_bit() from this code once the wait_for_bit series is applied. I > > don't see a problem with that and the wait_for_bit() being so explicitly > > pulled out from the code is done with that in mind. But that does not > > block this patch from being applied now. Does it? > > If I tell you I'm probably going to have the wait_for_bit stuff applied > before the next imx PR is ready... ? So, why is this patchset not applied yet ... ? Best regards, Marek Vasut