From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Troy Kisky <troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:58:43 -0700
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V3 00/32] Add mx6solo/mx6duallite support
In-Reply-To: <5072D1FE.60008@denx.de>
References: <1348281558-19520-1-git-send-email-troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com>
	<1349315254-21151-1-git-send-email-troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com>
	<5072D1FE.60008@denx.de>
Message-ID: <507368B3.70609@boundarydevices.com>
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

On 10/8/2012 6:15 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
> On 04/10/2012 03:47, Troy Kisky wrote:
>> This series goal is to add support for mx6solo and mx6duallite
>> variants of mx6qsabrelite board. The new targets are
>> called mx6ssabrelite and mx6dlsabrelite.
>>
>> The 1st 16 patches perform cleanup on imximage
> Hi Troy,
>
> I have some difficulties to understand which are the dependencies of
> this patchset. IMHO there are very different topics here, and some
> patches can be applied independently from the other one.
> imximage patches. For example, why "add mx6dl_pins" belong to imximage
> patchset ? It is surely easier to split for each topic, so that each
> patcheset can be applied independently if on a different topic there is
> still an open issue.
>
>
> I see at least:
> - imximage fixes: they are really fix and can be applied soon.
> - imximage new features
> - mx6 patches
>
> It is surely easier if you split your changes in separate patchset, as
> they covered different topics.
>
> Best regards,
> Stefano Babic
>
Yes, Eric made the same comment. I'll split the next version up.

Thanks
Troy