Thread (12 messages) 12 messages, 5 authors, 2011-01-22

RE: Request for unicore32 architecture codes to merge into linux-next

From: Guan Xuetao <hidden>
Date: 2011-01-18 09:08:37
Also in: linux-arch, linux-fbdev, lkml

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Mundt [mailto:lethal@linux-sh.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 12:33 PM
To: Guan Xuetao
Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au; Arnd Bergmann; gregkh@suse.de; jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org; dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com; dtor@mail.ru;
rubini@cvml.unipv.it; linux-arch@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-
next@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Request for unicore32 architecture codes to merge into linux-next

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 01:00:31AM +0800, Guan Xuetao wrote:
quoted
 drivers/staging/puv3/Kconfig                  |  125 ++
 drivers/staging/puv3/Makefile                 |   22 +
 drivers/staging/puv3/TODO                     |    7 +
 drivers/staging/puv3/i8042-ucio.h             |   89 ++
 drivers/staging/puv3/puv3-atkbd.h             |   43 +
 drivers/staging/puv3/puv3_ac97.c              |  369 +++++
 drivers/staging/puv3/puv3_i2c.c               |  309 ++++
 drivers/staging/puv3/puv3_pcm.c               |  435 ++++++
 drivers/staging/puv3/puv3_pcm.h               |   28 +
 drivers/staging/puv3/puv3_umal.c              | 2069 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/staging/puv3/puv3_unifb.c             |  965 ++++++++++++
Staging is not a shortcut around having things reviewed or broken out
logically. It's of course fine to merge the bulk of things in one go for
when a new architecture is going on, but logically disparate parts still
need to be broken out and sent to the proper places for review. It's
obvious you haven't done this for any of the non-arch bits and hiding
things under staging is not going to make this step any less necessary.

If you want your framebuffer driver reviewed, then split it out and
submit it to the linux-fbdev list for review. Once that's had a going
over and been Acked then of course it can be merged through whatever tree
you like, and there's even a good chance that you don't need to bother
with staging at all.

Using staging as a review circumvention measure however is just not going
to fly.
I understand.
IMO, the whole architecture specific codes need to be merged first, and only some
necessary drivers are included under staging. Then, I could split the staging drivers
into corresponding mail-list, and then, additional drivers.
Otherwise, there are no architecture basic for drivers review.

Thanks
Guan Xuetao
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help