On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:19:06 +0200 André Schwarz <andre.schw...@matrix-vision.de> wrote:
> > > -#define _IO_BASE 0x00000000 > > > - > > > > the above is the reason for the below: > > ok - understood. Didn't expect your patch being applied that quickly, > i.e. obviously missed all ACK's. WD hasn't applied it yet - I applied it to my local tree. None of this means your patch should touch the same line and thus cause unnecessary conflicts. > > So did you want 1-3/3 of these to bypass u-boot-mpc83xx and go straight > > to WD? I'm asking because there's overlap with the mpc5xxx maintainer > > (WD himself apparently) in this patchseries. > > Will wait for all replies. As far as I know WD is on vacation, i.e. this > is going to take some time. > I'm in no hurry - if it's ok for you I'll fix all remaining issues with > a single rebase/resend. sure, go ahead - I guess we have to wait for WD to pick them up. I'll try and ack them before he gets back. Kim _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
