On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:13:16 -0700 "Dale Farnsworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Each patch needs to be standalone. you need to add a header > describing what the patch is intended to accomplish. Being more > descriptive is better than less. Also, as Stephen said, make sure > that the subject of each email containing a patch is descriptive and > reasonably unique within the entire kernel. Splitting up the patches would be very error prone. I would have to basically do all the editing by hand. I also think I am not being clear enough. Basically what is currently in the mainline is platform code for a Rev A board with minimal FPGA functionality, since that is what we had at the time. These patches, I should probably merge them into one patch, bring the platform code up to a Rev B board with a more complete FPGA load. (I say more complete because FPGA loads are never complete ;) These patches only affect the Warp. Ignoring the LED and WDT patches, you have to have all the changes to get a working Rev B. You can't just put in the DTM changes or just put in the NAND changes. I listed 8 changes, but three are for NAND, and four are for DTM. I could compress them down: Updated platform code to support Rev B boards. * Switched from 64M NOR/64M NAND to 4M NOR/256M NAND. * Fully functional DTM. * Added POST information. * Removed LED function, moved to new LED driver. Now, the POST function and the removed LED function could be separate patches I guess, but it hardly seems worth it. The LED function was never used except in temporary debug code. > For example, instead of "WDT driver", as a minimum something like: > "[POWERPC] warp: Add WDT driver". Ok, that I can do. Cheers, Sean _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
