From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 18:57:18 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/6] stdio: Clean up
In-Reply-To: <20120901163306.54394205617@gemini.denx.de>
References: <1346453055-30888-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de>
	<201209011619.06260.marex@denx.de>
	<20120901163306.54394205617@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <201209011857.18390.marex@denx.de>
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

Dear Wolfgang Denk,

> Dear Marek,
> 
> In message <201209011619.06260.marex@denx.de> you wrote:
> > > > NOTE: I'm still working on the "compile tested on 2 different
> > > > architectures"
> 
> ...
> 
> > But all in all, I think exporting structures for others to access them as
> > they wish isn't the best of ideas. Therefore I encapsulated these into
> > the file and added accessors. The direction these patches take with
> > STDIO and console.c stuff in U-Boot is such that applying proper
> > encapsulation will allow easier conversion to the driver model stuff
> > later. Yet I'm getting there with really small steps as I need to be
> > very careful here.
> 
> Then please drop the "dm:" part from the commit messages.

I'd like to use it to track what's gonna end up in our patchdrop for the 
university, hope it's not a problem.

> > > 2) It appears this might be a RFC series, so why isn't it maked as
> > > 
> > >    such in the Subject: ?
> > 
> > It's not RFC, why would it be RFC? I'm still working on the "NOTE" part
> > though.
> 
> Well, either a patch is ready for submitting (which includes being
> compile-clean), or it is not - in which case it might still be good
> enough as a RFC.
> 
> You claim these patches are not ready yet, but they are not RFC
> either.  What are they then?

Something inbetween, still building. Yet, it does seem to be going well.

> > > 4) Besides the dead code removal - what exactly is the purpose of
> > > 
> > >    these patches?
> > 
> > Mostly see 1).
> 
> Then please document this in the commit message(s).

Every patch has it's proper commit message (but 1/6, which is obvious).

> Best regards,
> 
> Wolfgang Denk

Best regards,
Marek Vasut