[U-Boot] Quick sanity test after my NAND patches

[Paulraj, Sandeep <s-paulraj@ti.com>]

Hello Scott,
 
> Paulraj, Sandeep wrote:
> >> I don't know if the technique will work for you (Sandeep), but for the
> >> libfdt synchronization, I literally extracted the patches from the
> >> master DTC repository (git format-patch) and applied them (git am).
> > This might not work as git-am will complain about not being able to
> apply clean.
> 
> You can apply the patches to your u-boot tree with git am, fixing up any
> conflicts, and then do format-patch on the results.
> 
> > Is it possible for you to let me know which patches you are OK with, so
> that I know what to resend?
> 
> I'm most concerned with getting the attribution right on the 'fix "raw"
> reads with ECC syndrome layouts' patch, since that adds significant new
> code -- but ideally any patches that correspond with a patch in Linux
> should look as much like that patch as possible (otherwise, mention in
> the changelog that it is a sync with Linux). 

So I take it that you only want the above patch resent with the correct signoffs.
I'll resend this single patch.
.
> Or if you meant which
> patches I'm OK with merging even after resend, they all look OK.
> 
> As for the comment about checkpatch warnings, what was it complaining
> about?  If it's not too bad I'd rather not make stylistic deviations
> from what made it into Linux.

80 chars per line warning. Do we really need to break this rule while I submit my patch?

Unrelated, but if you have a look at the subpage API, that's absolutely unbelievable; the function header itself is some 150 chars. I don't have a clue as to how it got accepted by the MTD folks.
> 
> -Scott


Also in response to another e-mail from you, I think we need to update nand_ecc.c as well. I'll do that as well as a separate patch.

Thanks,
Sandeep