On Wednesday 01 February 2012 14:31:39 Eric Nelson wrote: > On 02/01/2012 10:00 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 01 February 2012 06:30:04 Stefano Babic wrote: > >> On 31/01/2012 20:14, Eric Nelson wrote: > >>> On 01/31/2012 11:11 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>>> On Tuesday 31 January 2012 12:52:06 Eric Nelson wrote: > >>>>> Patch 1 modifies the 'sf' command to allow a default bus and > >>>>> chip-select > >>>>> > >>>>> Patch 2 provides a description of usage and configuration of > >>>>> CONFIG_CMD_SF. > >>>> > >>>> you can drop these two SF patches from your mx6q series. i don't want > >>>> to keep checking to see if you've updated them :p. > >>> > >>> I figured as much, but I can't really test them without the rest of the > >>> series... > >> > >> It does not matter - Mike, what do you think if I merge the whole > >> patchset into u-boot-imx ? Else the mx6qsabrelite board cannot be built > >> until all patches will be merged by Wolfgang. > > > > i don't see why this series depends on the two spi flash patches. they > > were both "nice to have" patches which only change the default `sf` > > behavior. the boards will compile& run perfectly fine without them. > > My comment was the inverse: I can't test just the 'sf probe' updates unless > I have the core SPI flash support for mx6qsabrelite. > > AFAIK, the update to cmd_sf doesn't have any dependencies and of course the > README update doesn't.
i don't see any dependencies in either direction. i can push the sf updates before or after your board patchset. in either case, the build will produce a u-boot that's just as usable. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot