On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 10:47 +0100, Thomas Perrot via
lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> From: Thomas Perrot <[email protected]>
>
> This release has:
> - Synopsys DesignWare APB GPIO driver
> - Zicntr and Zihpm support
> - Console print improvements
> - Smepmp support
> - Simple FDT based syscon regmap driver
> - Syscon based reboot and poweroff driver
> - Non-contiguous hpm counters
> - Smcntrpmf support
> - Full sparse hartid support
> - IPI improvements
> - RFENCE improvements
> - Zkr support
> - Andes custom PMU support
> Overall, this release mainly adds more ISA extensions, drivers and other
> improvements.
>
> https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi/compare/v1.3.1...v1.4
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Perrot <[email protected]>
This all seems reasonable but why is there a revert below?
> ---
> ...re-Remove-handling-of-R_RISCV_-32-64.patch | 88 +++++++++++++++++++
> .../{opensbi_1.3.bb => opensbi_1.4.bb} | 8 +-
> 2 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644
> meta/recipes-bsp/opensbi/opensbi/0001-Revert-firmware-Remove-handling-of-R_RISCV_-32-64.patch
> rename meta/recipes-bsp/opensbi/{opensbi_1.3.bb => opensbi_1.4.bb} (90%)
>
> diff --git
> a/meta/recipes-bsp/opensbi/opensbi/0001-Revert-firmware-Remove-handling-of-R_RISCV_-32-64.patch
>
> b/meta/recipes-bsp/opensbi/opensbi/0001-Revert-firmware-Remove-handling-of-R_RISCV_-32-64.patch
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..d14e0b73a9bc
> --- /dev/null
> +++
> b/meta/recipes-bsp/opensbi/opensbi/0001-Revert-firmware-Remove-handling-of-R_RISCV_-32-64.patch
> @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
> +From bfe480929bcc966e1fdf5afdde8d4c22adba7f6f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> +From: Thomas Perrot <[email protected]>
> +Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:16:58 +0100
> +Subject: [PATCH] Revert "firmware: Remove handling of R_RISCV_{32,64}"
> +
> +This reverts commit 2a6d72534d44c39e1de0614970a0dad97b1c41ba.
> +
> +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [oe specific]
> +Signed-off-by: Thomas Perrot <[email protected]>
If we're going to revert an upstream change, we need to say *why*. We
need to revert it for some OE specific reason but what is that reason?
We cannot take patches marked as Inappropriate without much more
information.
Cheers,
Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#194059):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/194059
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/103782707/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
