Hi Stephen,
On Jun 12, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 06/12/2014 05:31 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
On May 23, 2014, at 10:24 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
Currently, U-Boot behaves as follows:
- Begin with no SD card inserted in "mmc 1"
- Execute: mmc dev 1
- This fails, since there is no card
- User plugs in an SD card
- Execute: mmc dev 1
- This still fails, since the HW isn't reprobed.
With this change, U-Boot behaves as follows:
- Begin with no SD card inserted in "mmc 1"
- Execute: mmc dev 1
- This fails, since there is no card
- User plugs in an SD card
- Execute: mmc dev 1
- The newly present SD card is detected
...
Thanks, applied.
-- Pantelis
Acked-by: Pantelis Antoniou panto@antoniou-consulting.com
Thanks very much for applying these.
I'm puzzled why you write Acked-by in the emails, and add it to the commit descriptions when you apply them? FWIW for reference: Acked-by as used by the Linux kernel is usually only used when giving permission to a different maintainer to apply the patches, rather than taking them through the usual tree. Signed-off-by is the tag usually used when applying commits yourself, although there's an unresolved question re: whether adding s-o-b (or presumably anything at all) to commits when applying them is appropriate behaviour for U-Boot.
Patchwork adds the Acked-by: line in the patches, and when I apply the patch I know for sure that I have actually reviewed the patch, and didn't just apply it blindly.
Just a way to not let things slip in.
Regards
-- Pantelis