From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Wu <davidwu@arcturusnetworks.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 11:11:35 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/7] AT49BV322A Flash: the erase regions are in
 the wrong order.
In-Reply-To: <201004090846.17760.sr@denx.de>
References: <op.vatgyxcaqigx4y@cyprus.local> <201004081721.46011.sr@denx.de>
	<op.vauotwzjqigx4y@cyprus.local> <201004090846.17760.sr@denx.de>
Message-ID: <op.vawhtld0qigx4y@cyprus.local>
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

Hi Stefan,

I think those patches if I resubmit are same as before except the subjects  
differ.
Anyway If no one complains then I will send.

Regards,
David

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 02:46:17 -0400, Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> On Thursday 08 April 2010 17:47:46 David Wu wrote:
>> > I didn't mean that you should split this patch, but that you should
>> > split it
>> > from your *patchset* of 7 parts. Resulting in a patchset with 6 parts
>> > ([PATCH
>> > 1/6] ...) and one single patch. This way it's easier for me to pick up
>> > such a
>> > CFI related patch.
>>
>> OK. Will do it.
>> A question: Do I have to do this way or just for convenience ?
>> My concerns are
>> 1 more traffic to the list
>
> Why would there be more traffic? Previously you did send 7 patches,  
> numbered
> 1/7 ... 7/7. Now you would send 7 patches 1/6 ... 6/6 plus the CFI patch.
>> 2 git will complain if applying the patch in the wrong order.
>
> The CFI patch is unrelated to the other patches. At least it wont  
> generate any
> compilation breakages/problems, if this patch is applied before or after  
> your
> other Coldfire patches.
> Cheers,
> Stefan
>
> --
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
> HRB 165235 Munich,  Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
> Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-0 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: office at denx.de
>
>