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

Reply via email to