From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Matthias Fuchs <matthias.fuchs@esd-electronics.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:23:48 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] RFC: Some improvements for the FPGA subsystem
In-Reply-To: <475FC984.527.4FAB14@w.wegner.astro-kom.de>
References: <200711111745.02822.matthias.fuchs@esd-electronics.com>
	<200712111800.16774.matthias.fuchs@esd-electronics.com>
	<475FC984.527.4FAB14@w.wegner.astro-kom.de>
Message-ID: <200712131023.48689.matthias.fuchs@esd-electronics.com>
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

Hi Wolfgang,

On Wednesday 12 December 2007 11:44, w.wegner at astro-kom.de wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
> 
> On 11 Dec 2007 at 18:00, Matthias Fuchs wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The new fwr callback makes sense to me. I agree that using the callbacks for every signal
> > change might be very slow. I used the the slave parallel code to load an fpga in slave serial
> > mode some time before. This reduces the callbacks a lot and booting was about 4 times faster.
> > I used the byte write callback to shift out 8 bits in this case.
> > 
> > I hope that my FPGA patches will get it into U-Boot when the next merge windows opens.
> > Perhaps you can provide a patch on top of that afterwards.
> 
> I will try to, as meanwhile my U-Boot environment settled down a bit, this should
> not be too much work.
> 
> Would such a "selective patch" like the last one be OK, then I do not have to investigate
> why I get all the empty diff lines from the new tree...?
I do not have to apply your patch. But I expect that wd will only except clean 'splipping' patches.

So it would be better to fix up your tree so that you can generate a patch as it is expected.
If nothing helps, check out a clean U-boot tree, modify it and try it again. 
It should be easier to fix your toolchain (we the help of others) than to get unclean patches
accepted. 

Matthias