From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefano Babic Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 10:59:03 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 2/7] arm: vf610: Add Vybrid VF610 CPU support In-Reply-To: <1005281327.1323573.1369838796215.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> References: <1369731347-9994-1-git-send-email-b18965@freescale.com> <1369731347-9994-3-git-send-email-b18965@freescale.com> <1386509674.1270616.1369768580454.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> <235749692.1271487.1369769439112.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> <81BA6E5E0BC2344391CABCEE22D1B6D834003A@039-SN1MPN1-003.039d.mgd.msft.net> <1005281327.1323573.1369838796215.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> Message-ID: <51A86657.8090000@denx.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 29/05/2013 16:46, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote: > Hi Alison, > Hi Benoit, >>> I have just noticed that this was actually in 6/7. Why are you putting >>> this into a separate patch? >> [Alison Wang] Because patch 2/7 is about VF610 CPU support, and >> doc/README.vf610 is also a document about >> VF610 SoC. Doc/README.mxc_ocotp is the document about a driver (IP OCOTP), so >> this driver document should be >> separated from CPU patch 2/7. > > I don't think so: It's part of what comes with the addition of the VF610 > platform, so 6/7 could be merged into 2/7. But it does not really matter. It's > probably also fine if you keep what you did. > > Stefano, any opinion? Strictly speaking, you're right. But as you mentioned, it does not really matter. Without reposting, I can myself squash 6/7 into 2/7 by merging the patchset. Best regards, Stefano -- ===================================================================== DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sbabic at denx.de =====================================================================