From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Soeren Moch Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 18:40:18 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] board: tbs2910: Disable CONFIG_ENV_VARS_UBOOT_CONFIG in defconfig In-Reply-To: <20200918162156.GV14816@bill-the-cat> References: <25199969-6211-55dc-b14c-95e7fc584150@web.de> <18439911-e205-1bea-a884-afe08e6d6a67@denx.de> <20200918162156.GV14816@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <4ee7aa10-ab49-9789-ffec-caeaee24dfcc@web.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 18.09.20 18:21, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 05:56:03PM +0200, Soeren Moch wrote: >> >> On 18.09.20 17:51, Stefano Babic wrote: >>> On 18.09.20 17:48, Soeren Moch wrote: >>>> On 18.09.20 17:21, sbabic at denx.de wrote: >>>>>> This is not required for sysboot (we defined fdtfile), let's save a few >>>>>> bytes in the binary image without these variables. >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Soeren Moch >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Fabio Estevam >>>>> Applied to u-boot-imx, master, thanks ! >>>>> >>>> Thanks, Stefano. >>>> >>>> What happened to the first patch of this series?? Patchwork status is >>>> "Changes Requested", but his patch only received 2 reviewed-by, no other >>>> requests. >>> Mmmhhh...when patch is in "Changes requested", it disappears from >>> Patchwork's TODO list and I do not see it anymore. Thanks for reporting >>> this, I search for it and I'll pick it up. >>> >> OK, thanks. No problem to apply patch 1/2 after 2/2. > Sorry, I think I see what happened. I had intended to, I suspect, mark > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20191010230048.10935-1-smoch at web.de/ > as "Changes Requested" (in part because it was suggested to also change > the level of the message, and in part because I think it's been > superseded by a change to do the same thing basically by now) and my > mouse slipped. > > I'll re-confirm that the MAC warning thing has been taken care of today, > as well. Again, sorry about that! > The MAC warning on tbs2910 was gone some time ago. So the linked patch must indeed be superseded by something that is already applied. Soeren