From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 14:30:54 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] ARM: bcm2835: add missing mbox overscan response field In-Reply-To: <20131107142912.2ddbedab@lilith> References: <1382473641-20614-1-git-send-email-a.heider@gmail.com> <5267FF35.3060901@wwwdotorg.org> <20131023194631.GA29233@gmail.com> <20131107142912.2ddbedab@lilith> Message-ID: <527C068E.5010604@wwwdotorg.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 11/07/2013 06:29 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 21:46:31 +0200, Andre Heider > wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 05:54:13PM +0100, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> On 10/22/2013 09:27 PM, Andre Heider wrote: >>>> Add the missing "right" field to struct bcm2835_mbox_tag_overscan. >>> >>> This one patch, >>> Acked-by: Stephen Warren >>> >>> You need to send/cc this patch to Albert Aribauld, since he applies ARM >>> patches. Or, perhaps just make sure the patch gets assigned to him in >>> patchwork? >> >> Okay, I did the patchwork dance :) >> >> Thanks, >> Andre > > In fact, the series could be applied as a whole by the same custodian > -- and actually, I'd prefer it to be applied as a whole, since patch 1/2 > alone looks like dead/useless code, whereas it makes sense if applied > along with 2/2. So, there are 2 patches and 2 custodians. One of you has to ack the patch for the other to merge them both through the other's subsystem, right? I guess you want Anatolij to take both of these through the video tree based on your comments. If so, can you ack this patch and re-assign them both in patchwork, so he knows that?