From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kevin.morfitt at fearnside-systems.co.uk Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:19:14 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH-ARM 1/2] Add support for the Embest SBC2440-II Board In-Reply-To: <4A3FD5C5.6030900@freescale.com> References: <4A3BC001.3010103@fearnside-systems.co.uk> <20090620173600.GC19715@game.jcrosoft.org> <4A3D7717.9070809@fearnside-systems.co.uk> <20090621094635.GF22845@game.jcrosoft.org> <4A3FD5C5.6030900@freescale.com> Message-ID: <4A401F82.5070909@fearnside-systems.co.uk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 22/06/2009 20:04, Scott Wood wrote: > Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: >> no as you add the nand in this patch >> the nand need to be add in a seperate patch, >> this one need to only add the s3c2440 support >> and the nand will be handle by Scott the nand Maintainer > > If a NAND patch is sandwiched in the middle of other patches that need > to go via an arch tree, and depends on some of those patches, I'd rather > ack the NAND bits to go through the arch tree rather than try to merge > everything separately while still maintaining dependencies. In that > case, keeping the NAND bits in a separate patch is nice, but not > mandatory IMHO. > Thanks, leaving the NAND changes in the arch-specific patch would be simpler for me. I have to make some changes to the SBC2440 patch anyway so I'll make sure I cc you when I re-send it. > I'll look at that patch soon. > > -Scott > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4179 (20090622) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com