[PATCH v3 1/8] ARM: mx5: use config to define boot related addresses

[Richard Zhao]

Hello Uwe,

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:01:57AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> Hi Uwe,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:05:06PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello Richard,
> > 
> > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 07:00:26PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:31:27AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:56:02PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Richard Zhao <richard.zhao at freescale.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Because common clock is changing, I don't send out mx50 clock code.
> > > > > But sure I tested the patch series using the clock code.
> > > > > 
> > > > >  arch/arm/mach-mx5/Makefile.boot |    6 +++---
> > > > >  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-mx5/Makefile.boot b/arch/arm/mach-mx5/Makefile.boot
> > > > > index 9939a19..fec7cd9 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-mx5/Makefile.boot
> > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-mx5/Makefile.boot
> > > > > @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
> > > > > -   zreladdr-y	:= 0x90008000
> > > > > -params_phys-y	:= 0x90000100
> > > > > -initrd_phys-y	:= 0x90800000
> > > > > +   zreladdr-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX51)	:= 0x90008000
> > > > > +params_phys-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX51)	:= 0x90000100
> > > > > +initrd_phys-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX51)	:= 0x90800000
> > > > looks good
> > > > 
> > > > Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de>
> > > Thanks.
> > > For such patch acked, do I need to re-send it out when I send out v4 version
> > > of the patch series?
> > As I'm not the imx-maintainer, I'd say yes, send it out (with my ack
> > added) in v4.
> > 
> Richard was trying to understand the correct approach for sending
> patch series.
> 
> I used to only send the updated patches in the new patch series
> since the last series version, while Richard prefer to send all
> the patches in the very single version, even most of them are not
> changed since the last version.
> 
> I think the sending delta way could save bandwidth and ease reviewing
> a little bit, while sending all may be easy for people to pick up
> the patches. So what is the preference for you guys?
yes, it's kind of what I'd ask. If I had v5 version, do I need to send out this
patch with V5 header and your ack too? V4 patch already has your ack.
Either way is Ok for me. Just consider which way help maintainer review and merge patch.

Thanks
Richard
> 
> > Uwe
> > 
> > -- 
> > Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
> > Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Shawn