From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:33:45 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC] [PATCH 00/39] Rework of the debug() macro
In-Reply-To: <m2ehy2mwt1.fsf@ohwell.denx.de>
References: <1319242654-15534-1-git-send-email-marek.vasut@gmail.com>
	<201110241216.43763.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
	<m2ehy2mwt1.fsf@ohwell.denx.de>
Message-ID: <201110241433.45421.marek.vasut@gmail.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 Marek,

Hi Detlev,

> 
> [...]
> 
> > I certainly see your point. Btw. do you feel like help reviewing the PPC
> > portion of the patches? That'd be greatly appreciated as I'm not a PPC
> > expert. I wanted to avoid resubmission, so I only pushed the new set to
> > git://git.denx.de/u-boot- marex.git / debug branch. There is over 50
> > patches now.
> 
> I fear that we have the possibility to loose efforts in communicating
> our distrubuted efforts here.  If want to ack only a subset of the
> patches only available on a git tree, I don't know how to give my
> "Acked-By" through the patchwork magic and _not_ add even more work on
> your shoulders.  On the other hand, the majority of fixes are printf
> fixes, so if the compiler does not complain on a MAKEALL any more, I
> don't see what other aspect I can evaluate on a "dry review".

More like a superset actually.

> 
> Effectively I was hoping that your large patch set stabilizes and
> produces no more warnings on a MAKEALL - in this case you have my
> 
> Acked-by: Detlev Zundel <dzu@denx.de>

There are a few patches that are not only printf() format patches. And even 
those printf() format patches deserve proper review.

Cheers