Dear Hans de Goede, In message <532d5238.6080...@redhat.com> you wrote: > > > "These changes are not useful by themselves but are split out to make > > the patch sizes more manageable." This is not how we work. Patches > > have to implement specific features, or fix specific bugs. And they > > have to maintain bisectability of the code. > > These patches do implement specific features, like dram init, timer/clk > init, etc. They just don't enable them yet as by themselves they are not > useful.
Well, then at least the commit meSsage needs some serious rework. > The patches also maintain bisectability since they don't touch any existing > files until the patch 5 and 6 come into play, and the changes in patch 5 keep > things compiling just fine. I think I have seen some interdependencies between the patches - like referring to stuff that gets only added in later patches? > FWIW I believe the split-up Ian has done makes sense. But if you insist I > guess we can merge patch 1-6 (the minimum set to get something working) > into 1 big patch. I did not look too thoroughly at the content. In any case, we need clear and descriptive commit messages, and proper attribution / SoB lines. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de Save energy: Drive a smaller shell. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
