Hello Scott,
Paulraj, Sandeep wrote:
I don't know if the technique will work for you (Sandeep), but for the libfdt synchronization, I literally extracted the patches from the master DTC repository (git format-patch) and applied them (git am).
This might not work as git-am will complain about not being able to
apply clean.
You can apply the patches to your u-boot tree with git am, fixing up any conflicts, and then do format-patch on the results.
Is it possible for you to let me know which patches you are OK with, so
that I know what to resend?
I'm most concerned with getting the attribution right on the 'fix "raw" reads with ECC syndrome layouts' patch, since that adds significant new code -- but ideally any patches that correspond with a patch in Linux should look as much like that patch as possible (otherwise, mention in the changelog that it is a sync with Linux).
So I take it that you only want the above patch resent with the correct signoffs. I'll resend this single patch. .
Or if you meant which patches I'm OK with merging even after resend, they all look OK.
As for the comment about checkpatch warnings, what was it complaining about? If it's not too bad I'd rather not make stylistic deviations from what made it into Linux.
80 chars per line warning. Do we really need to break this rule while I submit my patch?
Unrelated, but if you have a look at the subpage API, that's absolutely unbelievable; the function header itself is some 150 chars. I don't have a clue as to how it got accepted by the MTD folks.
-Scott
Also in response to another e-mail from you, I think we need to update nand_ecc.c as well. I'll do that as well as a separate patch.
Thanks, Sandeep