Dear Wolfgang Denk,
Dear Marek,
In message 201209011619.06260.marex@denx.de you wrote:
NOTE: I'm still working on the "compile tested on 2 different architectures"
...
But all in all, I think exporting structures for others to access them as they wish isn't the best of ideas. Therefore I encapsulated these into the file and added accessors. The direction these patches take with STDIO and console.c stuff in U-Boot is such that applying proper encapsulation will allow easier conversion to the driver model stuff later. Yet I'm getting there with really small steps as I need to be very careful here.
Then please drop the "dm:" part from the commit messages.
I'd like to use it to track what's gonna end up in our patchdrop for the university, hope it's not a problem.
It appears this might be a RFC series, so why isn't it maked as
such in the Subject: ?
It's not RFC, why would it be RFC? I'm still working on the "NOTE" part though.
Well, either a patch is ready for submitting (which includes being compile-clean), or it is not - in which case it might still be good enough as a RFC.
You claim these patches are not ready yet, but they are not RFC either. What are they then?
Something inbetween, still building. Yet, it does seem to be going well.
Besides the dead code removal - what exactly is the purpose of
these patches?
Mostly see 1).
Then please document this in the commit message(s).
Every patch has it's proper commit message (but 1/6, which is obvious).
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Best regards, Marek Vasut