[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Part 1 of 2 MPC85XXADS-20040716.patch-1 for TLB/DDR

[Jon Loeliger]

On Fri, 2004-07-16 at 16:51, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <1090009011.23992.5.camel at blarg.somerset.sps.mot.com> you wrote:
> > 
> > Here is a patch for the MPC8540/8560ADS and STXGP3 boards
> > that is primarily to support larger DDR memories up to 2G.
> 
> Can you please think of a better subject line for your patches?

What would you like?  I meant to convey that:

    - It was a [PATCH]
    - It was for the MPC85XXADS boards,
    - A specific patch release identified by date,
    - That it came in multiple parts, in this case -1 and -2,
    - That its primary purpose was TLB/DDR related

Most of that information is geared towards potential searching
of the archives, your information, my internal logging, and
hopefully some form of "quick identification".

Where did I go wrong?


> I find it extremely confusing when I first get a patch titled:
> 
> 	[PATCH] MPC85XXADS-20040716.patch for TLB/DDR
> 
> and then another one (split in 2 parts) titled
> 
> 	[PATCH] MPC85XXADS-20040716.patch-1 for TLB/DDR
> 
> I tend to assume that these are redundand, and dump one of them.

In fact, I was 5K over the mailing list size limit and was
informed that it wasn't sent to the list.  Last time I sent
something to the list that was over the size limit, you
specifically asked me to resend it in multiple parts.

So this time, that is exactly what I did.

So yes, it was redundant and one of the patches, the first,
was expected to be /dev/nulled.  In the second posts, I clearly
indicated that it was a re-send of the earlier one due to size
limit problems.


> Looking closer, I find that at least one subject is totally wrong.

My apologies.

> 
> Wolfgang Denk

jdl