Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs

Tom Rini [off-list ref] wrote:

Because you enjoy our conversations? :)

Normally I do, but then we got on the subject of which patches should or
shouldn't be accepted, and I'm not going to discuss that with anyone except the
actual responsible maintainers.

And then you'll have to go and improve the patch anyhow, if you're going
to stick to your word. :)

Oh sure, I have a ton of improvements in mind, I just want to do them one step
at a time, i.e., not work on patch N+1 until N is in the tree.

How is that a step backward?

The steps forward are linuxppc_2_4_devel -> linuxppc_2_4 -> Marcelo -> 2.4
tarballs on kernel.org -> Debian, Yellow Dog, etc. Sidetrack trees like
2_4_galileo are a step backward.

All of the current galileo work is in that
tree.

No, a better competing version of the GT-64260 work is in the 2_4_msokolov tree
on my machine.

And a quick diff of the enet drivers in the two trees shows a
good deal of differences, many of which aren't just cosmetic.  Isn't it
more 'natural' to update the most up to date file?

The gt64260_eth driver in both trees is so busted that I plan to rewrite it
from scratch anyway like I already did with the rest of the GT-64260 code. (And
when I do I'll make it vastly superior to yours to convince Paulus/Marcelo to
use it over yours.)

MS

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/