On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 25.02.2014 09:51, schrieb Andreas Färber:
>> Am 25.02.2014 09:46, schrieb Peter Crosthwaite:
>>> Ping!
>>
>> Looked good, didn't get to applying them yet. I did wonder though a) why
>> 1/6 is not renaming the parent field to verify and b)
Am 25.02.2014 09:51, schrieb Andreas Färber:
> Am 25.02.2014 09:46, schrieb Peter Crosthwaite:
>> Ping!
>
> Looked good, didn't get to applying them yet. I did wonder though a) why
> 1/6 is not renaming the parent field to verify and b) whether I can swap
> d vs. dev naming in one hunk there while
Am 25.02.2014 09:46, schrieb Peter Crosthwaite:
> Ping!
Looked good, didn't get to applying them yet. I did wonder though a) why
1/6 is not renaming the parent field to verify and b) whether I can swap
d vs. dev naming in one hunk there while at it.
Cheers,
Andreas
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1
Ping!
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Peter Crosthwaite
wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> Here is a mixed bag of QOM cleanups, moving us slightly closer to
> QOMification of SSI.
>
> This prepares support for some major refactoring around SSI (in
> particular some QSPI patches).
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
>
Hi Andreas,
Here is a mixed bag of QOM cleanups, moving us slightly closer to
QOMification of SSI.
This prepares support for some major refactoring around SSI (in
particular some QSPI patches).
Regards,
Peter
Peter Crosthwaite (6):
ssi: Convert legacy casts from SSI_SLAVE->DEVICE
ssi: Remo
