On 06/12/2014 05:31 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > On May 23, 2014, at 10:24 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> Currently, U-Boot behaves as follows: >> >> - Begin with no SD card inserted in "mmc 1" >> - Execute: mmc dev 1 >> - This fails, since there is no card >> - User plugs in an SD card >> - Execute: mmc dev 1 >> - This still fails, since the HW isn't reprobed. >> >> With this change, U-Boot behaves as follows: >> >> - Begin with no SD card inserted in "mmc 1" >> - Execute: mmc dev 1 >> - This fails, since there is no card >> - User plugs in an SD card >> - Execute: mmc dev 1 >> - The newly present SD card is detected ... > Thanks, applied. > > -- Pantelis > > Acked-by: Pantelis Antoniou <pa...@antoniou-consulting.com>
Thanks very much for applying these. I'm puzzled why you write Acked-by in the emails, and add it to the commit descriptions when you apply them? FWIW for reference: Acked-by as used by the Linux kernel is usually only used when giving permission to a different maintainer to apply the patches, rather than taking them through the usual tree. Signed-off-by is the tag usually used when applying commits yourself, although there's an unresolved question re: whether adding s-o-b (or presumably anything at all) to commits when applying them is appropriate behaviour for U-Boot. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
