Hi Sascha,
On 10.12.19 11:45, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 09:15:52AM +0100, Stefan Riedmüller wrote:
Hi Sascha,
On 10.12.19 09:05, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 08:50:41AM +0100, Stefan Riedmüller wrote:
Hi Sascha,
On 09.12.19 16:37, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 01:31:40PM +0100, Stefan Riedmueller wrote:
Change environment device-path from using a separate label to
referencing a device plus partname.
Why? The way it was is fine.
Just to be consistent with phyCORE and phyFLEX. Is there a downside I'm not
aware of?
It feels more natural to directly point to the partition, that's why I
prefer that way. So if you don't have a good reason I suggest to convert
it the other way round for consistency
I will recheck if there was a specific reason for us to use the partname
approach. But you can drop this patch for now.
I just tried. The series doesn't apply on current master. Could you
rebase it?
Yes, of course.
Stefan
Sascha
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
