From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vivien Chappelier Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/12] Add an option to disable debug UART. Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:42:29 +0200 Message-ID: <466F1345.8090703@free.fr> References: <466AE1C3.8090506@free.fr> <20070612132154.GD28834@atomide.com> <20070612133623.GG28834@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070612133623.GG28834@atomide.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-omap-open-source-bounces@linux.omap.com Errors-To: linux-omap-open-source-bounces@linux.omap.com To: Tony Lindgren Cc: Linux OMAP List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Hi, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> Hmm, is the extra + before busyuart above intentional? >> > > I guess I should be looking at the updated patch set instead... > Yes, sorry for the mess... Most of the syntactic mistakes still apply though, so I'll update my patches to take them into account. I've just noticed I've forgotten to use 'struct kp_key' for a few boards in '[PATCH 11/12] Add support for keys setting multiple bits in the scan', so I'll fix that as well. Concerning patches which add new config options such as in '[PATCH 3/12] Add an option to disable debug UART.', should I also provide a patch to update all defconfigs or is it ok not to do so? Thanks for your time, Vivien.