| Message ID | 1414098121-13029-1-git-send-email-jeroen@myspectrum.nl |
|---|---|
| State | Awaiting Upstream |
| Delegated to: | Stefano Babic |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Jeroen Hofstee <jeroen@myspectrum.nl> wrote: > Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com> > Signed-off-by: Jeroen Hofstee <jeroen@myspectrum.nl> Acked-by: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com> Please add Stefano on Cc next time.
Hello Fabio, On 23-10-14 23:04, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Jeroen Hofstee <jeroen@myspectrum.nl> wrote: >> Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com> >> Signed-off-by: Jeroen Hofstee <jeroen@myspectrum.nl> > Acked-by: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com> > > Please add Stefano on Cc next time. I would have normally, but get_maintainer instructed me not to do so. Shouldn't it be adjusted then to include the responsible custodian as well if that is what we want? Or should I use get_maintainer.pl differently? For the record, I am not a linux developer, I don't know how the script is commonly used. Regards, Jeroen
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Jeroen Hofstee <jeroen@myspectrum.nl> wrote: >> Please add Stefano on Cc next time. > > > I would have normally, but get_maintainer instructed me > not to do so. Shouldn't it be adjusted then to include the > responsible custodian as well if that is what we want? Yes, I think it should. Regards, Fabio Estevam
Hi Jeroen, On 23/10/2014 23:17, Jeroen Hofstee wrote: > Hello Fabio, > > On 23-10-14 23:04, Fabio Estevam wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Jeroen Hofstee <jeroen@myspectrum.nl> >> wrote: >>> Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Jeroen Hofstee <jeroen@myspectrum.nl> >> Acked-by: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com> >> >> Please add Stefano on Cc next time. > > I would have normally, but get_maintainer instructed me > not to do so. Shouldn't it be adjusted then to include the > responsible custodian as well if that is what we want? > Yes - it looks like that the script must be still adjusted. > Or should I use get_maintainer.pl differently? For the record, > I am not a linux developer, I don't know how the script is > commonly used. IMHO it is easier in the kernel, because each subsystem is isolated and has its own ML. On U-Boot, we are working together in the same ML and then we have to assign each single patch to the related custodian into patchork. Sending the patch directly in CC to the custodian helps this process. Regards, Stefano
On 23/10/2014 23:02, Jeroen Hofstee wrote: > Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com> > Signed-off-by: Jeroen Hofstee <jeroen@myspectrum.nl> > > --- Applied to u-boot-imx, thanks ! Best regards, Stefano Babic
diff --git a/include/configs/wandboard.h b/include/configs/wandboard.h index 37e3429..1a9c4ab 100644 --- a/include/configs/wandboard.h +++ b/include/configs/wandboard.h @@ -84,6 +84,15 @@ #define CONFIG_CMD_FAT #define CONFIG_DOS_PARTITION +/* USB Configs */ +#define CONFIG_CMD_USB +#define CONFIG_USB_EHCI +#define CONFIG_USB_EHCI_MX6 +#define CONFIG_USB_STORAGE +#define CONFIG_USB_MAX_CONTROLLER_COUNT 2 +#define CONFIG_MXC_USB_PORTSC (PORT_PTS_UTMI | PORT_PTS_PTW) +#define CONFIG_MXC_USB_FLAGS 0 + /* Ethernet Configuration */ #define CONFIG_CMD_PING #define CONFIG_CMD_DHCP
Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com> Signed-off-by: Jeroen Hofstee <jeroen@myspectrum.nl> --- version 3: - don't blindly copy get_mainter output - don't forget the subject-prefix version 2: - remove the duplicated CONFIG_CMD_FAT --- include/configs/wandboard.h | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)