Dear Wolfgang Denk, > Dear Marek, > > In message <201209011619.06260.ma...@denx.de> you wrote: > > > > NOTE: I'm still working on the "compile tested on 2 different > > > > architectures" > > ... > > > But all in all, I think exporting structures for others to access them as > > they wish isn't the best of ideas. Therefore I encapsulated these into > > the file and added accessors. The direction these patches take with > > STDIO and console.c stuff in U-Boot is such that applying proper > > encapsulation will allow easier conversion to the driver model stuff > > later. Yet I'm getting there with really small steps as I need to be > > very careful here. > > Then please drop the "dm:" part from the commit messages.
I'd like to use it to track what's gonna end up in our patchdrop for the university, hope it's not a problem. > > > 2) It appears this might be a RFC series, so why isn't it maked as > > > > > > such in the Subject: ? > > > > It's not RFC, why would it be RFC? I'm still working on the "NOTE" part > > though. > > Well, either a patch is ready for submitting (which includes being > compile-clean), or it is not - in which case it might still be good > enough as a RFC. > > You claim these patches are not ready yet, but they are not RFC > either. What are they then? Something inbetween, still building. Yet, it does seem to be going well. > > > 4) Besides the dead code removal - what exactly is the purpose of > > > > > > these patches? > > > > Mostly see 1). > > Then please document this in the commit message(s). Every patch has it's proper commit message (but 1/6, which is obvious). > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
