Hi Tom, On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 09:06:01AM -0800, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Wolfgang, >> >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: >> > Dear Tom, >> > >> > In message <51216721.1010...@ti.com> you wrote: >> >> >> >> There's another thread I don't have yet (and I don't have this one in >> >> gmail yet even). But, I am OK with custodians using their repos, but >> >> not the master branch, for unrelated but otherwise good patches. I'm >> >> also fine with patchwork bundles. I suppose we could use the staging >> >> repository for these changes instead. >> > >> > What I mostly object about there is that these patches would go into >> > mainline basicly unreviewed, as patch submission and pull request is >> > all done from a single person, with no other feedback on the patches >> > at all. And this affects a lot of common code... >> > >> > Actually, I see this change when pulling u-boot-x86.git/master: >> > >> > -> bloat-o-meter u-boot-before u-boot >> >> What board is this please? >> >> Some specific notes here - I think it boils down to moving crc32 into >> the hash framework. This adds some overhead, but has a few benefits. > > So you're going to v2 this part?
Yes, sorry for the hold-up, but I think this patch needs a few tweaks. I may even need to create a separate patch depending on how much I need to change common/hash.c. Hopefully it is just a case of adding some #ifdefs (!) and another parameter to select the behaviour required. I will make time for this tomorrow because then I am away until next week. > > -- > Tom _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
