[U-Boot] [PATCH] The omap3 L2 cache enable/disable function to omap3 dependent code

[Kim, Heung Jun]

Dear Kim Philips,

Thanks to review & help.

I agree with 1, 2 ideas.

> 3. while making backreferences by pointing to messages in the list
> archive is cool, they don't stand the test of time - the URL may one
> day cease to exist.  So it is better to either reference a commitish in
> the repository itself, or simply restate/copy the original data.
But, I don't understand idea 3 well.
Let me know more detailed? :-)
I don't understand the word "commitish" & the meaning of "original data".
And, I think that you tell me to simplify the comments.
Is it right or something like?

BTW, Thanks one more :)

Best Regards,
riverful


2009/6/2 Kim Phillips <kim.phillips at freescale.com>:
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 19:14:49 +0900
> "Kim, Heung Jun" <riverful at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> CC: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme at googlemail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: HeungJun, Kim <riverful.kim at samsung.com>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> The L2 cache enable/disable function in the cpu/arm_cortexa8/cpu.c moved
>> to cpu/arm_cortexa8/omap3/cache.c.
>>
>> This patches fixes the First issue in the following
>>
>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-May/053433.html
>>
>> The Second issue is fixed by
>>
>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-May/053490.html
>>
>
> Hi Riverful,
>
> 1. the patch title is missing the verb 'move'
> 2. your signoff is in the correct location, however the commit message
> is not.  It belongs above the line with the '---'.
> 3. while making backreferences by pointing to messages in the list
> archive is cool, they don't stand the test of time - the URL may one
> day cease to exist.  So it is better to either reference a commitish in
> the repository itself, or simply restate/copy the original data.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kim
>