-----Original Message-----
From: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Paul Mundt
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:11 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 Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 05:07:41PM +0800, Guan Xuetao wrote:

quoted

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.

That's of course fine so long as the driver changes are reasonably
self-contained. The situation we want to avoid is that you end up with
drivers that depend on some private infrastructure of API where not
enough context is provided when the two are decoupled.

In any event, the architecture bits are the most self-contained and have
had the most review of anything in this series of patches, so it probably
makes sense to work on getting those bits integrated and then dealing
with the rest incrementally.

Then, I should:
1. merge reviewed arch dir and reviewed drivers (for now, i8042)
2. submit staging drivers to review
Am I right?

Thanks.
Guan Xuetao