#33: New motherboard IEI NOVA4899R --------------------------------------------------------+------------------- Reporter: Luis Correia luis.f.correia@gmail.com | Owner: somebody Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: trivial | Milestone: Going mainstream Component: code | Version: v2 Keywords: | Include_gantt: 0 Dependencies: | Due_assign: MM/DD/YYYY Due_close: MM/DD/YYYY | --------------------------------------------------------+------------------- WARNING!!! this is work in progress!
The following files add support for the IEI NOVA4899R 5.25 SBC mainboard.
As of now, it does boot with serial console only (no vga), and two ethernet cards work sometimes. This has to do with the IRQ assignments, which are a complete mess. USB is now apparently working, but I can't make any device to be recognized.
The PCI slot is still unusable due to the IRQ thing.
Audio, other serial ports, irda, floppy and paralell port support is unknown aka untested yet.
Please forgive me for not supplying a proper patch file.
Signed-off-by: Luis Correia luis.f.correia@gmail.com
#33: New motherboard IEI NOVA4899R ---------------------------------------------------------+------------------ Reporter: Luis Correia luis.f.correia@gmail.com | Owner: somebody Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: trivial | Milestone: Going mainstream Component: code | Version: v2 Resolution: | Keywords: Include_gantt: 0 | Dependencies: Due_assign: MM/DD/YYYY | Due_close: MM/DD/YYYY ---------------------------------------------------------+------------------ Comment (by Luis Correia luis.f.correia@gmail.com):
Please close this ticket as it was a browser mishap.
Luis Correia
#33: Signed-off-by in trac is meaningless ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Reporter: segher | Owner: somebody Type: defect | Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Resolve license issues Component: misc | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: trac Include_gantt: 1 | Dependencies: Due_assign: MM/DD/YYYY | Due_close: MM/DD/YYYY ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Comment (by segher):
Acked-by: like in #14 doesn't say which patch it is supporting, either. Worse, that ticket doesn't hold any patches; it merely points to a mailing list archive that happily dropped the message attachments.
On 11/5/06, LinuxBIOS svn@openbios.org wrote:
#33: Signed-off-by in trac is meaningless ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Reporter: segher | Owner: somebody Type: defect | Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Resolve license issues Component: misc | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: trac Include_gantt: 1 | Dependencies: Due_assign: MM/DD/YYYY | Due_close: MM/DD/YYYY ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Comment (by segher):
Acked-by: like in #14 doesn't say which patch it is supporting, either. Worse, that ticket doesn't hold any patches; it merely points to a mailing list archive that happily dropped the message attachments.
-- Ticket URL: http://tracker.linuxbios.org/trac/LinuxBIOS/ticket/33#comment:1 LinuxBIOS http://www.linuxbios.org/
What should be done then? Send the PATCH to the mailing list instead of creating the ticket? I'm still struggling to provide a proper diff file for ticket #32, will be done in a sec.
Luis
#33: Signed-off-by in trac is meaningless ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Reporter: segher | Owner: somebody Type: defect | Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Resolve license issues Component: misc | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: trac Include_gantt: 1 | Dependencies: Due_assign: MM/DD/YYYY | Due_close: MM/DD/YYYY ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Comment (by uwe):
Replying to [ticket:33 segher]:
See for example ticket #26 -- which of those two patches does the Signed-off-by: refer to?
Both. But I agree that we should probably have a sign-off for _every_ patch, even if it's only a small variation of an already signed-off patch.
#33: Signed-off-by in trac is meaningless ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Reporter: segher | Owner: somebody Type: defect | Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Resolve license issues Component: misc | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: trac Include_gantt: 1 | Dependencies: Due_assign: MM/DD/YYYY | Due_close: MM/DD/YYYY ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Comment (by uwe):
Replying to [comment:1 segher]:
Acked-by: like in #14 doesn't say which patch it is supporting, either.
Hm, true. The intention usually is to support the latest incarnation of the patch, but we should make that explicit, I think.
Worse, that ticket doesn't hold any patches; it merely points to a
mailing list
archive that happily dropped the message attachments.
The ticket should have the patch, yes. I'll append it soon. There was a Trac bug that caused some mails to not being sent to the list (might be related to this issue). Stefan has since fixed that bug.
The mailing list archive _should_ always contain attachments (the patches), that used to work...
#33: Signed-off-by in trac is meaningless ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Reporter: segher | Owner: somebody Type: defect | Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Resolve license issues Component: misc | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: trac Include_gantt: 1 | Dependencies: Due_assign: MM/DD/YYYY | Due_close: MM/DD/YYYY ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Comment (by stepan):
Signed-off-by: and Acked-by: always corresponds to the latest added patch, unless otherwise noted. Since each patch and each comment has a timestamp, everything is clear, right?
#33: Signed-off-by in trac is meaningless
Signed-off-by: and Acked-by: always corresponds to the latest added patch, unless otherwise noted. Since each patch and each comment has a timestamp, everything is clear, right?
IU&^*^*(^(*^*(^*(^(*&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Internal Error Sorry, can not save your changes. This ticket has been modified by someone else since you started
TracGuide — The Trac User and Administration Guide
---
Well I'll paste my comment here then. Here goes:
---
Signed-off-by: and Acked-by: always corresponds to the latest
added patch, unless otherwise noted. Since each patch and each comment has a timestamp, everything is clear, right?
So two patches by Uwe on a ticket with 3 comments -- yeah sure we can handle that. Now how about a ticket with 12 proposed patches by 4 people, each fixing part of the problem, some superseded by newer patches; and all of that intermingled with some odd 100 comments? Can you still align that so that you clearly see or supposed "paper" track of origin of the code?
Maybe this is all just a symptom of a greater problem: patches should always be presented with a proposed check-in comment, and the signed-off-by should be part of that comment.
Segher
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 10:32:59PM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Signed-off-by: and Acked-by: always corresponds to the latest
added patch, unless otherwise noted. Since each patch and each comment has a timestamp, everything is clear, right?
So two patches by Uwe on a ticket with 3 comments -- yeah sure we can handle that. Now how about a ticket with 12 proposed patches by 4 people, each fixing part of the problem, some superseded by newer patches; and all of that intermingled with some odd 100 comments? Can you still align that so that you clearly see or supposed "paper" track of origin of the code?
Where appropriate different issues should be "outsourced" to different tickets. Yes, there will probably be some tickets with a huge number of comments and patches. But that should be an exception.
Maybe this is all just a symptom of a greater problem: patches should always be presented with a proposed check-in comment, and the signed-off-by should be part of that comment.
Yes, definately. I tried to do this for my last few patches already. It should be documented correctly in the development guidelines, though (those need some updates currently).
Uwe.
* Segher Boessenkool segher@kernel.crashing.org [061105 22:32]:
Signed-off-by: and Acked-by: always corresponds to the latest
added patch, unless otherwise noted. Since each patch and each comment has a timestamp, everything is clear, right?
So two patches by Uwe on a ticket with 3 comments -- yeah sure we can handle that. Now how about a ticket with 12 proposed patches by 4 people, each fixing part of the problem, some superseded by newer patches; and all of that intermingled with some odd 100 comments? Can you still align that so that you clearly see or supposed "paper" track of origin of the code?
Not easily, because trac groups all attachments together instead of packing them into their submission comments.
In such a case you should write the name of the patch you Sign-off or Ack. "Unless otherwise noted".
In theory, a patch that solves half the problem only should not get Acked.
Maybe this is all just a symptom of a greater problem: patches should always be presented with a proposed check-in comment, and the signed-off-by should be part of that comment.
Yes.
The check-in comment should be "all of the discussion done on this check-in", so you get a non-ambiguous bidirectional connection between a check-in and the discussion that led to this check-in.
If you go through the revisions of v1 and v2, you will find a lot of stuff that nobody will ever be able to find out what it was good for. This was fine when it was done, but it will not be fine for a high quality "product". And with a userbase of 10mio we should aim at that.
We have to have something like trak. If trak is not it then let's pick something better.
But don't underestimate how hard the problem is, or how hard stefan has thought about this :-)
ron
#33: Signed-off-by in trac is meaningless ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Reporter: segher | Owner: somebody Type: defect | Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Resolve license issues Component: misc | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: trac Include_gantt: 1 | Dependencies: Due_assign: MM/DD/YYYY | Due_close: MM/DD/YYYY ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Comment (by segher):
The mailing list archive _should_ always contain attachments (the
patches), that used to work...
It actually did have the patches but they couldn't be viewed in my browser (either the sender used the wrong MIME-type, or the web server did and the mailing list archive software is too stupid to set it from the mail and just guesses instead. Or something else still ;-) )
Segher
#33: Signed-off-by in trac is meaningless ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Reporter: segher | Owner: somebody Type: defect | Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Resolve license issues Component: misc | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: trac Include_gantt: 1 | Dependencies: Due_assign: MM/DD/YYYY | Due_close: MM/DD/YYYY ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Comment (by Luis Correia luis.f.correia@gmail.com):
Please kill me :)
Honestly, being new here, i must agree that working out patches through trac is not easy...
#33: Signed-off-by in trac is meaningless ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Reporter: segher | Owner: somebody Type: defect | Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Resolve license issues Component: misc | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: trac Include_gantt: 1 | Dependencies: Due_assign: MM/DD/YYYY | Due_close: MM/DD/YYYY ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Comment (by segher):
Please kill me :)
Heh no :-)
Honestly, being new here, i must agree that working out patches through
trac is not easy...
I'm not new to track, but I wonder if it really is fit for what we're trying to use it for right now.
Segher
On 11/5/06, LinuxBIOS svn@openbios.org wrote:
#33: Signed-off-by in trac is meaningless ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Reporter: segher | Owner: somebody Type: defect | Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Resolve license issues Component: misc | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: trac Include_gantt: 1 | Dependencies: Due_assign: MM/DD/YYYY | Due_close: MM/DD/YYYY ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Comment (by segher):
Please kill me :)
Heh no :-)
I tought this whole ticket #33 was about my double ticket creation... it was not apparently. my mistake!
Luis
#33: Signed-off-by in trac is meaningless ----------------------------------+----------------------------------------- Reporter: segher | Owner: somebody Type: defect | Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Component: misc | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: trac Due_close: MM/DD/YYYY | Include_gantt: 1 Dependencies: | Due_assign: MM/DD/YYYY Patchstatus: there is no patch | ----------------------------------+----------------------------------------- Changes (by stepan):
* patchstatus: => there is no patch * milestone: Resolve license issues =>
-
LinuxBIOS -
Luis Correia -
ron minnich -
Segher Boessenkool -
Stefan Reinauer -
Uwe Hermann