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

[Holger Brunck]

On 07/03/2012 02:38 PM, Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Holger Brunck [mailto:holger.brunck at keymile.com]
>> Sent: 03 July 2012 18:02
>> To: Prafulla Wadaskar
>> Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de; Valentin Longchamp;
>> albert.u.boot at aribaud.net
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/14] arm/km: convert mgcoge3un target to
>> km_kirkwood
>>
>> 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?
> 
> Yes, Please send the patch series for bug fix and improvements ONLY, I will pull them ASAP.
> 
> The others we can converge soon.
> 

But 01-08 are not only bugfixes there are also two new boards in these patches.
So will you pull these eight patches in if I post them again without 09-14?

Regards
Holger