From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Reinhard Meyer <u-boot@emk-elektronik.de>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:17:14 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] AT91 rework: pm9261, pm9263 and pm9g45
In-Reply-To: <4DF0BA87.5090603@ronetix.at>
References: <4DF08968.4080501@ronetix.at> <4DF0A71E.7020100@emk-elektronik.de>
	<4DF0A7CF.9010907@emk-elektronik.de> <4DF0BA87.5090603@ronetix.at>
Message-ID: <4DF0D5EA.305@emk-elektronik.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 Asen Dimov,
> Hi Reinhard,
> 
> On 06/09/2011 02:00 PM, Reinhard Meyer wrote:
> ...
>>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99665/
>>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99666/
>>>>
>>>> [PM9263]
>>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99662/
>>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99668/
>>>>
>>>> [PM9G45]
>>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99664/
>>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99667/
>> Ah, and patches should be numbered 1/n .. n/n; 0/n is only
>> for a descriptive summary.
>>
> should I repost them numbering with 1/n?
After applying, the text within [] is gone anyway,
so it is ok for me.

Unless someone mandates otherwise...

Best Regards,
Reinhard