From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Valentin Longchamp Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 13:23:53 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/3] Serial Flash: call spi_flash_free more coherently In-Reply-To: <52DE45DE.5050205@keymile.com> References: <1379400379-5759-1-git-send-email-valentin.longchamp@keymile.com> <52DE45DE.5050205@keymile.com> Message-ID: <5437C1C9.5000908@keymile.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hello Jagannadha, On 01/21/2014 11:03 AM, Valentin Longchamp wrote: > On 09/17/2013 08:46 AM, Valentin Longchamp wrote: >> Some board require spi_flash_free to be called after all the accesses, >> in order, for instance, to restore the pin multiplexing configuration in >> the case where the SPI pins are multiplexed. >> >> This patch series tries to enhance this. Patch 1 adds spi_flash_free >> calls to env_sf so that the SPI interface is always "cleaned up" after >> the env read/writes. Patch 2 adds a 'sf release' command that implicitly >> calls spi_flash_free and is thus the pendant of 'sf probe'. Patch 3 uses >> the 'sf command' for the km_arm board scripts. >> >> >> Valentin Longchamp (3): >> env_sf: generalize call to spi_flash_free after accesses >> cmd_sf: add 'release' command >> km_arm: call 'sf release' in the newenv and update scripts >> >> common/cmd_sf.c | 13 ++++++++++++- >> common/env_sf.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++------------------ >> include/configs/km/km_arm.h | 6 ++++-- >> 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) >> > > I have sent this series 4 months ago and while it is according to patchwork > under review I have not received any feedback yet. > > That would be nice if this goes into the next merge window since they have been > floating around for 4 months now. > Here I ping again ! I have sent this series more than a year ago and you had promised me a off list a review "in a few days" at the beginning of march 2014 ... but I have seen nothing. The only thing that has happened is that the first patch of the series was rejected by you. I don't mind that the patch was rejected. But this is a required patch for us and I want it to be mainlined, because I have to rebase it internally for every release. Without the feedback about why it was rejected, I cannot however improve it and resubmit it. Can you please review this series and give me a feedback about it ? Valentin