From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@denx.de>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:27:01 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] Please pull u-boot-ppc4xx/next
In-Reply-To: <200911120614.04989.sr@denx.de>
References: <200911101641.26100.sr@denx.de>
	<200911112212.06545.matthias.fuchs@esd-electronics.com>
	<200911120614.04989.sr@denx.de>
Message-ID: <4AFD6CB5.8080807@denx.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Stefan,

Stefan Roese wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
> 
> On Wednesday 11 November 2009 22:12:06 Matthias Fuchs wrote:
>>> please pull some updates for "next". Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> The following changes since commit
>>> cd12f615e4dd1dd24caab93f4157894783c6c1c0: Wolfgang Grandegger (1):
>>>         mpc52xx: add support for the IPEK01 board
>>>
>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>
>>>   git://www.denx.de/git/u-boot-ppc4xx.git next
>>>
>>> Matthias Fuchs (1):
>>>       ppc4xx: Add UBI support to PLU405 boards
>> What happened to the others? ".. init coupler..." etc.
> 
> As you know, these patches depend on the sja1000 CAN header:
> 
> [PATCH 1/2] Add minimal SJA1000 header for basic CAN mode
> 
> And I'm not sure what the current status of this header is. Wolfgang 
> Grandegger (added to Cc) also introduced some new CAN stuff. We don't want to 
> add multiple headers of course.

My stuff was sent as RFC. It's on hold now as there was little feedback.

> So how should we continue here? I understand that your patches depending on 
> this sja1000 header are bugfixes:
> 
> [PATCH 2/2 V3] ppc4xx: Initialize magnetic couplers in PLU405
> [PATCH] ppc4xx: Initialize magnetic coupler on VOM405 boards
> 
> And you introduced this header on the explicit proposal from Wolfgang Denk. So 
> I would vote for adding your bug fix patches with your sja1000 header right 
> now. We should remove this header again, when the CAN support from Wolfgang 
> Grandegger hits mainline.

Yep.

Wolfgang.