[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 05/21] sf: Make flash->flags use for generic usage

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 09:14:01AM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> Hi Jagan,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jagan,
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Jagan Teki <jteki at openedev.com> wrote:
> >> Use the flash->flags for generic usage, not only for dm-spi-flash,
> >> this will be used for future flag additions.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jteki at openedev.com>
> >> [Correct the spi flash flags detect logic]
> >> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com>
> >> Tested-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >> Changes for v4:
> >>         - Fixed SNOR_F_SST_WR
> >> Changes for v3, v2:
> >>         - none
> >>
> >
> > It turns out this patch breaks the Intel Crown Bay SPI flash. I
> > compared my original submitted patch with this patch you applied, and
> > surprisingly found there are differences ...
> >
> > My version is http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/517704/
> > You version below seems to modify some places which you thought would
> > be correct, but that's unfortunately wrong. If you reworked my patch,
> > I think you should remove at least my "Tested-by:" tag and ask me to
> > retest.
> >
> > Can you please help me understand what happened? I expected that you
> > should just grab my version and include it in your patch series.
> >
> 
> I see you were replying yesterday, but did not see any response on this one.

Modifying patches between the mailing list and applying, outside of
making things apply again or extremely obvious fixes is really really
frowned upon.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20151117/84611084/attachment.sig>