On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 06:22:10PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 06:18:23 PM, Stefano Babic wrote: > > On 24/01/2016 18:11, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > It is not clear when the wait_for_bit() will be applied, I am certain > > > there will be another round for so. I do not want to wait for it and I > > > don't see a reason why those patches should block this if the conversion > > > can be done afterward. > > > > Just wait for a while - if it takes too much, I reconsider to apply this > > first and factorize wait_for_bit() in a follow-up patch. > > I have waited for over a month and I fail to see a reason why patches which > will be applied at uncertain point in the future shall block this patchset. > The wait_for_bit() can be removed by a subsequent patch, it is already pulled > out explicitly in the code, so I don't see a problem with applying this.
Did I miss something or isn't v4 of wait_for_bit good to go? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
