> -----Original Message----- > From: Holger Brunck [mailto:holger.bru...@keymile.com] > Sent: 12 June 2012 16:07 > To: Prafulla Wadaskar > Cc: Valentin Longchamp; prafu...@mavell.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de; > Gerlando Falauto > Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/20] arm/km: add kmnusa board support > > 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...
It would be a great you can split 20 patches in to smaller patch series as per above suggestion. > > 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. I can understand what you mean, I would be happy if you can keep this stuff small, simple and more structured (preferred least usage of #ifdef) Regards.. Prafulla . . . _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
