Hi Jagan, On 05 December 2016 10:29, Jagan Teki wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Phil Edworthy > <phil.edwor...@renesas.com> wrote: > > Hi Jagan, > > > > On 02 December 2016 14:20, Jagan Teki wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Phil Edworthy > >> <phil.edwor...@renesas.com> wrote: > >> > This is in preparation for adding another arg. > >> > >> ?? proper reason for changing arg to bool. > > Purely because the patch 11 adds another arg that is a bool (which is the > > natural > > type as it is read from a dtb). Then having this bypass arg as something > > other > > than a bool look a bit odd. > > Can't we make this as 11 and saying the reason for bool which is > used/compatible with previous dt patch (I mean 11th patch in the > current case)? Do you mean swap patches 10 and 11? Then this commit msg is basically to say it is changed to bool to match the other arg? If so, then sure, no problem.
Thanks Phil > thanks! > -- > Jagan Teki > Free Software Engineer | www.openedev.com > U-Boot, Linux | Upstream Maintainer > Hyderabad, India. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
