From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:27:47 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] NAND: remove remaining NAND_MAX_CHIPS definitions In-Reply-To: <4EDE1F7C.5070408@mleia.com> (sfid-20111206_135858_424973_B508ACF2) References: <1321798216-30283-1-git-send-email-vz@mleia.com> <4EDE1F7C.5070408@mleia.com> (sfid-20111206_135858_424973_B508ACF2) Message-ID: <4EDE5093.9030806@freescale.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 12/06/2011 07:58 AM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > Hi Scott, > > On 20.11.2011 16:10, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >> This change follows the change by Wolfgang Grandegger (commit >> 6c869637fef), >> which allows to remove useless NAND_MAX_CHIPS definitions in board config >> files. >> >> The change is based on u-boot.git/master, this branch contains 3 new >> boards >> with the defined NAND_MAX_CHIPS macro, which are not present in >> u-boot-nand-flash.git/master. >> >> Vladimir Zapolskiy (1): >> NAND: remove NAND_MAX_CHIPS definitions >> >> include/configs/P1_P2_RDB.h | 3 +-- >> include/configs/SIMPC8313.h | 3 +-- >> include/configs/VCMA9.h | 1 - >> include/configs/aria.h | 4 ---- >> include/configs/bf526-ezbrd.h | 1 - >> include/configs/bf527-ad7160-eval.h | 1 - >> include/configs/bf527-ezkit.h | 1 - >> include/configs/bf548-ezkit.h | 1 - >> include/configs/cm-bf527.h | 1 - >> include/configs/cpu9260.h | 1 - >> include/configs/da830evm.h | 1 - >> include/configs/da850_am18xxevm.h | 1 - >> include/configs/da850evm.h | 1 - >> include/configs/ea20.h | 1 - >> include/configs/hawkboard.h | 1 - >> include/configs/km/km_arm.h | 1 - >> include/configs/m28evk.h | 1 - >> include/configs/mecp5123.h | 2 -- >> include/configs/mpc5121ads.h | 1 - >> include/configs/mv-common.h | 1 - >> include/configs/pdm360ng.h | 2 -- >> include/configs/pm9261.h | 1 - >> include/configs/qi_lb60.h | 1 - >> include/configs/smdk2410.h | 1 - >> include/configs/tnetv107x_evm.h | 1 - >> 25 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) >> > > is there any problem with this pending change? No, looks good. -Scott