[U-Boot] [PATCHv2] socfpga: Move board/socfpga_cyclone5 to board/socfpga

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hi Pavel,

On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 01:22:01 +0200, Pavel Machek <pavel at denx.de> wrote:

> Hi!
> 
> > > > > From: Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen at altera.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Because the SOCFPGA platform will include support for Cyclone V and
> > > > > Arria V FPGA parts, renaming socfpga_cyclone5 folder to socfpga to
> > > > > be more generic.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen at altera.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Pavel Machek <pavel at denx.de>
> > > > > Cc: Chin Liang See <clsee at altera.com>
> > > > > Cc: Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de>
> > > > > CC: Pavel Machek <pavel at denx.de>
> > > > > Cc: Tom Rini <trini at ti.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > v2:
> > > > > - Add Reviewed-by: Pavel Machek
> > > > > - Cc: Tom Rini
> > > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > > Do you really mean that V2 is the exact same code as V1? If it is, then
> > > > V2 is unneeded. And if V2 is different from V1, then history should
> > > > tells us the difference(s).
> > > 
> > > V2 is the same as v1 codewise. So should I resend this a V1 to be
> > > applied?
> > 
> > If V1 is the same as V2 as far as the code is concerned, then there is
> > simply no point in sending V2 or resending V1 again.
> > 
> > The V2 history makes me guess you thought it necessary to officialize
> > Pavel's Reviewed-By somehow, but that's unneeded; patchworks takes care
> > of collecting all the {Reviewed,Acked,Tested,...}-by's and providing
> > them when applying the patch through pwclient.
> 
> This got pretty confusing lately. Can we just wait for the patches to
> be applied, or do we need to take some action?

No, no need to take action; I was just clarifying why V2 was unneeded
here, so that similar uneeded new versions are avoided in the future.

Since V1 has already been marked as superseded, I'll apply V2 -- after
2013.07 is out.

> Thanks,
> 									Pavel

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.