On Friday 21 of September 2012 14:51:33 Marek Vasut wrote: > Dear Pavel Herrmann, > > > On Thursday 20 of September 2012 22:05:36 Marek Vasut wrote: > > > Dear Pavel Herrmann, > > > > > > > This core provides unified access to different block controllers > > > > (SATA, > > > > SCSI). > > > > > > Description of the patch missing or is sub-par. You should work on this > > > skill. > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Herrmann <morpheus.i...@gmail.com> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Makefile | 1 + > > > > drivers/blockctrl/Makefile | 42 ++++++ > > > > drivers/blockctrl/core.c | 349 > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/dm/blockctrl.h > > > > > > > > 75 ++++++++++ > > > > 4 files changed, 467 insertions(+) > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/blockctrl/Makefile > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/blockctrl/core.c > > > > create mode 100644 include/dm/blockctrl.h > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile > > > > index e43fd9d..4420484 100644 > > > > --- a/Makefile > > > > +++ b/Makefile > > > > @@ -304,6 +304,7 @@ LIBS-y += test/libtest.o > > > > > > > > LIBS-$(CONFIG_DM) += common/dm/libdm.o > > > > LIBS-$(CONFIG_DM) += drivers/demo/libdemo.o > > > > LIBS-${CONFIG_DM_BLOCK} += drivers/blockdev/libblockdev.o > > > > > > > > +LIBS-${CONFIG_DM_BLOCK} += drivers/blockctrl/libblockctrl.o > > > > > > ${} ? What is this ? > > Why not just reuse drivers/block and in drivers/block compile in the > libblock.o so you don't polute the top-level makefile ? Easy as that. > > > > [..] > > > > > > This handles SCSI? Sata ? what ? > > > > > > Should this not be called scsi_core ? sata_core ? What did the previous > > > core do? sata? scsi? block? I'm lost. > > > > the previous core handled disks (and cards and stuff) and partitions > > (think > > /dev/sdxy), and was largely a replacement of /disk > > this core handles any interface those disks are connected to (SATA, PATA, > > SCSI), and should replace /drivers/block > > Why is this not in the commit message then ? I have a proposal, before you > submit a patchset, prepare it, work on something else for a bit, then read > again the commit message only and see if you still understand what it > means.
I actually did. the "something else" was splitting it into smaller patches, so the original text information got distributed into the other patches. if i put it all here you would surely complain about it not being there, or it being duplicated > Am I correct that this will look as such: > user -> [ 01/11 ] -> [ 03/11 or something else ] -> [ if 03/11, then disc ] no idea what this means, sorry Pavel Herrmann _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot