From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 16:41:02 -0600
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix SPL build for non-ARM targets
In-Reply-To: <50EDEE6A.7080406@ti.com> (from trini@ti.com on Wed Jan  9
	16:25:46 2013)
Message-ID: <1357771262.18196.10@snotra>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On 01/09/2013 04:25:46 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 01/09/2013 05:06 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > BTW, the conflicting patch was
> > 5846b11e8810f0ecc15e78b383b7709b9b785580 ("am33xx_spl_bch: simple
> > SPL nand loader for AM33XX").  It's a NAND patch, in
> > drivers/mtd/nand specifically.  I don't see my ACK on it, and it
> > came in through the ti tree.
> 
> Putting on my u-boot-ti hat...
> 
> > If we were having custodians sign-off patches as they apply them,
> > you could tell from a glance that a patch is missing either
> > Acked-by or Signed-off-by from a relevant maintainer.
> 
> Yes, the series was posted Oct 30, and was minor updates to an
> existing SoC driver (omap_gpmc), some code for new related parts of
> the SoC (the ELM code, for offloading bch math) and a new SPL shim
> because there was no other way to get the read correct.  I merged it
> on or around Dec 10 and figured that since you hadn't spoken up in the
> intervening time, you didn't see anything worth commenting on.

I get a lot of e-mail.  Some of it gets missed.  If I haven't responded  
to something that directly touches drivers/mtd/nand within a reasonable  
time frame, please remind me rather than assume acquiscence.

Regardless, it's the manual merge that definitely needed review.

-Scott