Hi Dinh,
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 11:10:37 -0500, Dinh Nguyen <dingu...@altera.com>
wrote:
> Hi Albert,
>
> On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 23:04 +0200, ZY - albert.u.boot wrote:
> > Hi dingu...@altera.com,
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 17:00:18 -0500, <dingu...@altera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Dinh Nguyen <dingu...@altera.com>
> > >
> > > Because the SOCFPGA platform will include support for Cyclone V and
> > > Arria V FPGA parts, renaming socfpga_cyclone5 folder to socfpga to
> > > be more generic.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dinh Nguyen <dingu...@altera.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Pavel Machek <pa...@denx.de>
> > > Cc: Chin Liang See <cl...@altera.com>
> > > Cc: Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de>
> > > CC: Pavel Machek <pa...@denx.de>
> > > Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com>
> > >
> > > v2:
> > > - Add Reviewed-by: Pavel Machek
> > > - Cc: Tom Rini
> > > ---
> >
> > Do you really mean that V2 is the exact same code as V1? If it is, then
> > V2 is unneeded. And if V2 is different from V1, then history should
> > tells us the difference(s).
>
> V2 is the same as v1 codewise. So should I resend this a V1 to be
> applied?
If V1 is the same as V2 as far as the code is concerned, then there is
simply no point in sending V2 or resending V1 again.
The V2 history makes me guess you thought it necessary to officialize
Pavel's Reviewed-By somehow, but that's unneeded; patchworks takes care
of collecting all the {Reviewed,Acked,Tested,...}-by's and providing
them when applying the patch through pwclient.
> Dinh
Amicalement,
--
Albert.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
