Hi Marcel,
Am 2021-10-23 01:09, schrieb Marcel Ziswiler:
Sorry, I did not want to upset anybody. I probably should have asked
first before doing this.
You could have said the below in the cover letter. Then
I'd have at least an idea what is going on ;)
On Sat, 2021-10-23 at 00:52 +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
Hi Marcel,
Am 2021-10-23 00:19, schrieb Marcel Ziswiler:
> From: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswi...@toradex.com>
>
>
> Note that this re-base is only compile tested.
Care to explain what this is? Why are you taking my patchset
and make a new version of it and rebasing it on the wrong
tree?
You might have noticed that Stefano has a hard time applying some
patch sets due to continuing conflicts.
Therefore in trying to further the binman clean-up [1] were I am just
about to post a new version as well, I
took the liberty to re-fresh all the patches my series bases on which
have not seen any care for more than a
month. I re-based them on top of Stefano's u-boot-imx/master branch
which I am very certain is exactly the tree
stuff needs to be re-based to, not?
This is a layerscape SoC board whose patches usually go through
u-boot-fsl-qoriq. Apart from the one doc fix there should be no
dependency on the u-boot-imx tree. I just took Frieder's doc fix
because my last patch depends on it, (in a sense that it doesn't
apply without it). The imx tree should be fine without the fix,
it's just that the generated doc is messed up for the kontron
boards.
I think you don't really need this for your series.
Did I miss something?
Not sure. If you still feel my work is of no help to the community I
am more than happy to abandon any of it.
Now knowing why you did it, it's fine; its just the wrong
tree.
-michael
