On 12/05/2016 11:33 AM, Phil Edworthy wrote: > 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.
I don't think it makes any sense to swap patches 10 and 11, they seem orthogonal to me. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
