Hello Scott,

Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 07:05:03AM +0200, Heiko Schocher wrote:
>> Hmm... this is the third patch of a patchset, so it apply cleanly, if
>> the other 2 patches are first applied ... or should I base this patch
>> against current nand-flash tree, because this patch goes through your
>> tree?
> 
> Ah, I missed that.  It's generally preferred, when possible, to not mix
> custodians in a single patchset -- if you can separate out the NAND
> driver into its own standalone patch (that doesn't touch any board
> configs), that'd be ideal.  Otherwise, it'll have to wait until the

Hmm.. because it is for the kmeter1 (83xx) based board, it touches
also this config file ...

> prerequisite patches are merged (or at least acked) by the relevant
> custodian.

I prefer this way. If this is OK for you I can send a new patch,
with your suggestions included ...

bye
Heiko
-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Reply via email to