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

[Holger Brunck]

On 07/03/2012 01:19 PM, Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----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.
> 

so and when do you think to pull this in? AFAIK we are shortly before rc1. And I
would like to  see this in, everything was published before the merge window was
closed and we have reacted on every input you gave. But we can't react on inputs
which are not clearly stated.

So how do we proceed here to get this in for v2012.07? If I summarize the
situation you don't have any particular objections against 01-08 of this series.
So should I resend these eight patches as a standalone serie to get at least
these patches in?

Regards
Holger