From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Haavard Skinnemoen Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:18:01 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] AT91 NAND om AT91SAM9260EK In-Reply-To: <021001c74e3c$ba5a68c0$01c4af0a@Glamdring> References: <20070211234520.9F54135265F@atlas.denx.de> <021001c74e3c$ba5a68c0$01c4af0a@Glamdring> Message-ID: <1defaf580702120718x1bfd5b64j538996eb958b33e3@mail.gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 2/12/07, Ulf Samuelsson wrote: > >> It really does not make sense to test his patches only > >> on boards which does not use the dataflash. > > > > If that's all he has, then he has no other choice. > > He has always the choice of realizing that he maybe should > leave this possible improvement to someone capable of testing it > and concentrate on stuff which he can test. Yeah, that's a nice attitude. "Go away, we don't want your patches." Without even looking at them? Btw, I can't help but feel that you're using me as an example here, since I _did_ at one point suggest that one particular patch would only need compile-testing. If you are, please stop it because you're misrepresenting what I said. Haavard