[U-Boot] [PATCH v9 15/30] autoconfig.mk: Make it possible to define configs from other configs

Tom Rini
2013-03-13T13:56:34Z

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/13/2013 09:35 AM, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:01:47 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
>> On 08/03/2013 15:54, Fabio Estevam wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think the giant list from Benoit got lost. It's a HUGE
>>>> thing to change. I think we should just accept that config
>>>> variables are mixed case, or at least not block this patch on
>>>> a very large unrelated fixup.
>>>
>>> Agreed. Benoit's patch series contains 30 patches and it is at
>>> version 9.
>>>
>>> It would be better to treat this fixup seperately.
>>>
>>
>> Agree with you, this is my proposal to go on. I think we can also
>> try to split patches for area of competence, with patchsets for
>> i.MX, for ARM and for general. And maybe merging patches that are
>> laready passed the review.
>>
>> For that, patches 1 until 9 are related to i.MX and mainly to the
>> NAND for i.MX. They get already Scott's ACK. IMHO they are
>> independent from the rest of the patchset and they can be merged
>> now. My proposal is that I merge this part and for the next
>> iteration the number of patches will be reduced ;-)
>>
>>> Currently mx31pdk is broken in mainline and Benoit's series
>>> fixes it, so hopefully this can make into 2013.04.
>>
>> Let's see what we can do ;-)
>
> Yes, it could be split as you suggest, but it has already been
> reviewed and tested by several people, so I'm not sure if we still
> have to wait for anything before applying. Albert seemed to agree
> for this v9 for the arm bits, but he has not given his formal ack
> yet. Albert, is everything OK for you?
>
> The sooner it is applied, the longer people will have to test
> before the release.

I am not going to insist that the N different parts come in from N
different trees, as long as the relevant acks are present (and it
sounds like they are). I will give the whole series another read
today just to be sure there's nothing popping out at me.

- --
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRQIWRAAoJENk4IS6UOR1WLToQAJzQlTf1c6XogQZq6YaCENAC
1cSyfAnD/+1FDtoEt1wxfSxDi77mgIifsig+ac6ZbtJAB9y1AsKudTOyJEI5TBgu
85FpSx4re7DLUqHaOgVV35bHNRLwfTM1vaxb4KJcfFqUGnIiVTpyerScPnFUDNpU
gz0LZh5ou4saK89oOWA3qbIHeADDNU/st0C05HjObkotCcPDOK0zPoAmc4T4WC03
lfUb23HYQh9OKK75MdW+UYOgNRIl9R0pqFNklujof5m2t5NrSJhp8xlfVZgUw571
G/Yn69n+VDmDrSrDorFL4dpvRZE69x+M07k7hYGg0R5ZKQcgZ/2iwCADMCnvshZa
t9V/ttPvOfTXCaEHi/gCe7u+CBjCu0FW7R9/2LWFImOw5qnYqR/D/Scf4WOgTaMi
xTksob1+rLJJ6dIzo/BFc0LlOpaKJTLmrpMiBwJmvPh9I2/wYUsbGRCS8nhFIfSf
o5GklP8CfiRKaIssS692ncxdGy7ZTFQo3txLSC+H8Kyjy72Kd6XwBBd7E7w4jhDh
iBxoDVgelwSLjjAV8zuRBSWO8ueGPe5qAicNfhoRhsJ/hUtwxMG1cO2kjFAhVsOC
ZtP56RvajKZBSnUk607iajZxuYcElTxKg8lL8PlugHemsTDBxZeiR/BQtmbqpzDs
rgtpehR2zx9Cx3SM8nnN
=xRZz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----