On 06/12/2012 11:57 AM, Prafulla Wadaskar wrote: >>>> board/keymile/km_arm/km_arm.c | 9 +- >>>> boards.cfg | 1 + >>>> include/configs/km/km_arm.h | 44 +++++- >>>> include/configs/km_kirkwood.h | 67 +++++++-- >>>> 6 files changed, 392 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) >>>> create mode 100644 board/keymile/km_arm/128M16-1.cfg >>>> >>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS >>>> index 0445539..aa11268 100644 >>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS >>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >>>> @@ -738,6 +738,7 @@ Sergey Lapin <sla...@ossfans.org> >>>> Valentin Longchamp <valentin.longch...@keymile.com> >>>> >>>> km_kirkwood ARM926EJS (Kirkwood SoC) >>>> + kmnusa ARM926EJS (Kirkwood SoC) >>> >>> Again.... I would like to suggest to separate out new boards >> addition, bugfixes/updates specific to km_*boards and generic kirkwood >> specific patches. >>> >>> It's always faster to merger small patch series that big one. >>> >> >> Yes ok, but was has this to do with this patch? What is meant to be >> kirkwood >> specific? This is all board related code. > > I agree, let's separate out - > 1. bugfix/updates patch series to current code > 2. "Kirkwood specific" means the changes to the Kirkwood related file that > may affects other boards, for ex arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mach-kirkwood/* > 3. Additional board supports > > And if possible these patches should be independent so that can be pulled > independently >
the only patch in the serie which modifies common Kirkwood related files are: [PATCH 03/20] arm/kirkwood: protect the ENV_SPI #defines Do you want me to send this one seperately? I can do that. So then we resend again a new patch serie I guess... The other stuff is only related to our boards and I would like to keep it as it is. It would cause a lot of rebasing and reorganisation and in the end the result is the same. Regards Holger _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
