[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 03/14] arm/km: convert mgcoge3un target to km_kirkwood

[Prafulla Wadaskar]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Holger Brunck [mailto:holger.brunck at keymile.com]
> Sent: 03 July 2012 16:08
> To: Prafulla Wadaskar
> Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de; Valentin Longchamp
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/14] arm/km: convert mgcoge3un target to
> km_kirkwood
> 
> Hi Prafulla,
> 
> On 07/03/2012 10:05 AM, Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Holger Brunck [mailto:holger.brunck at keymile.com]
> >> Sent: 13 June 2012 19:03
> >> To: u-boot at lists.denx.de
> >> Cc: Holger Brunck; Valentin Longchamp; Prafulla Wadaskar
> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 03/14] arm/km: convert mgcoge3un target to
> >> km_kirkwood
> >>
> >> Use the generic header km_kirkwood.h and get rid of the
> >> board specific header.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Holger Brunck <holger.brunck at keymile.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Valentin Longchamp <valentin.longchamp at keymile.com>
> >> cc: Prafulla Wadaskar <prafulla at marvell.com>
> >> ---
> >> changes for v2:
> >>    - rebased because of changes in other patches
> >>
> >>  board/keymile/km_arm/km_arm.c |    9 ++--
> >>  boards.cfg                    |    2 +-
> >>  include/configs/km_kirkwood.h |   46 +++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  include/configs/mgcoge3un.h   |   87 -----------------------------
> ---
> >> ---------
> >>  4 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-)
> >>  delete mode 100644 include/configs/mgcoge3un.h
> >
> > This patch makes sense to me since it since it shrinks overall code.
> > Doe not have dependency in patch series, can be accepted if outside
> the series.
> >
> 
> again, but there are a lot of dependencies between 01-02 and 03-04
> because all
> doing a lot in km_kirkwood.h.  So do you have any particular
> objections against
> the first two patches, beside your input for the kwbimage.cfg which I
> answered
> in a different mail?

As I suggested earlier

You may have patch series for the bugfixes/improvements to the currently supported code.

You may have new board support as separate patch, if those have dependency, get it addressed first.

As such I do not have any objection about longer patch series but
Generally having a long patch series requires longer time to be get pulled in.

Regards...
Prafulla . . .