Oops, sorry, I overlooked this e-mail!
At Sun, 09 Oct 2005 01:17:18 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Ummm... we don't have an entry in the official <MAINTAINERS file, but it seems Sascha Hauer is "responsible" for the scb9328 board. Did you nbegotiate your patch with him?
Hm, he did the initial port. Now I tune this and that and Sascha is testing my images or patches from time to time. The scb9328 is developed sold in our company whereas Sascha works somewhere else now.
I reject this patch. It violates the coding style (trailing white space, indenation not by TABs, etc.), and some of your changes to
Ouch! I will fix this. I even found linebreaks replaced by TAB+linebreak. Do you have seen this by accident or do you search for such things with your editor?
scb9328.h file don't look clean to me. Your definition of CONFIG_COMMANDS is error prone.
Ok, how should I do it right?
Go figure what happens when somebody add's a new command which is not supported by your board. He will probably not bother to update your config file.
I don't get it. May be I have blinders on now. But how breaks a new config command my setup (and not the others, I saw this construction somewhere else).
It contains the code unlocking intel k3 devices.
This is another reason for rejecting it. See the rpevious discussion about this issue.
This stuff I removed again in the git diff (not fully I realized now, two defines...). I use "protect off" and for normal use userspace tools does this from linux-mtd.
Please clean up and submit as patch here on the list.
No Problem.
Konsti