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
