On 06/12/2012 11:57 AM, Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
board/keymile/km_arm/km_arm.c | 9 +- boards.cfg | 1 + include/configs/km/km_arm.h | 44 +++++- include/configs/km_kirkwood.h | 67 +++++++-- 6 files changed, 392 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) create mode 100644 board/keymile/km_arm/128M16-1.cfg
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 0445539..aa11268 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -738,6 +738,7 @@ Sergey Lapin slapin@ossfans.org Valentin Longchamp valentin.longchamp@keymile.com
km_kirkwood ARM926EJS (Kirkwood SoC)
kmnusa ARM926EJS (Kirkwood SoC)Again.... I would like to suggest to separate out new boards
addition, bugfixes/updates specific to km_*boards and generic kirkwood specific patches.
It's always faster to merger small patch series that big one.
Yes ok, but was has this to do with this patch? What is meant to be kirkwood specific? This is all board related code.
I agree, let's separate out -
- bugfix/updates patch series to current code
- "Kirkwood specific" means the changes to the Kirkwood related file that may affects other boards, for ex arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mach-kirkwood/*
- Additional board supports
And if possible these patches should be independent so that can be pulled independently
the only patch in the serie which modifies common Kirkwood related files are: [PATCH 03/20] arm/kirkwood: protect the ENV_SPI #defines
Do you want me to send this one seperately? I can do that. So then we resend again a new patch serie I guess...
The other stuff is only related to our boards and I would like to keep it as it is. It would cause a lot of rebasing and reorganisation and in the end the result is the same.
Regards Holger