Hi Stephen, On Jun 12, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 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. Patchwork adds the Acked-by: line in the patches, and when I apply the patch I know for sure that I have actually reviewed the patch, and didn't just apply it blindly. Just a way to not let things slip in. Regards -- Pantelis _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
