[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] DA830: Add pinmux for USB0_DRVVBUS

[Gupta, Ajay Kumar]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paulraj, Sandeep
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 10:00 PM
> To: Tom; Nick Thompson
> Cc: Gupta, Ajay Kumar; u-boot at lists.denx.de; Subbrathnam, Swaminathan
> Subject: RE: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] DA830: Add pinmux for USB0_DRVVBUS
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Paulraj, Sandeep wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ajay Kumar Gupta wrote:
> > >>> USB0_DRVVBUS pinmux configuration is required for USB functinality
> > >>> in uboot.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ajay Kumar Gupta <ajay.gupta at ti.com>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Swaminathan S <swami.iyer at ti.com>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> This patch set is created against Nick Thompson's latest patch set
> > >>> (v5) on DA8xx support and another patch from him on Davinci pinmux.
> > >>> [Davinci: add a pin multiplexer configuration API]
> > >> It is difficult to review code that is dependent on other outstanding
> > >> patches.
> > >>
> > >> The base DA8xx support will be in arm-ti branch shortly.
> > >> Please rebase these patches when this happens and resubmit.
> > >>
> > >> Tom
> > >
> > > I think he might have added it locally and then made his patches.
> > > So he might not have to rebase.
> > >
> > > Without Nick's patches da830evm.c would not even exist :-)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > My issue is not with how development continues, it is with how patches
> > are reviewed.  To really review this patchset someone would need to
> > apply the pin mux patch, the the 8xx patch set, then this set.
> > Reviewing patches against outstanding patches does not scale and should
> be
> > avoided.
> >
> > Tom
> 
> Not any more :-)
> 
> Take a look at http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-
> ti.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/master
> 
> I have tested some other DaVincs SOCs as well after adding these patches
> and they seem to be working fine as of now.
> 
> Lets continue the review process for the USB support.

I had actually applied all dependent patches and then created the USB patches and tested. So it removes the rebase issue.

Regards,
Ajay
> 
> Thanks,
> Sandeep