Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs
From: Troy Benjegerdes <hidden>
Date: 2002-03-21 20:36:33
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 09:04:35AM -0800, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Tom Rini [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Sure there is, for it to be accepted.Wait a minute, why am I even talking to you? Mark said he is the responsible maintainer and promised to push my patch in a few days if there is no consensus by then, and I think I'll just wait a few days and then ask him to stick to his word. (I'm willing to bet $50 that in the next few days there will be no consensus nor will anyone else offer a counterpatch.)
Well, If I remember right, Mark doesn't even have a galileo board anymore (someone else got it). So I could probably make an argument I'm the maintainer now.
quoted
And would you please make it versus the _galileo treeSorry, no, that would be a step backward and we need to move forward.
I strongly suggest you submit me (or the -galileo) list patches, otherwise when I start merging the _galileo tree code to _devel, I'm likely to blow your changes away because I can't test them. And PLEASE give me a different eth driver ;) The one in the tree right now works for single cpus, but a) is ugly b) blows up very nicely with SMP. The _galileo tree was created to keep us from thrashing in _devel with a bunch of crappy (but working) code. FYI, I am about ready to merge Zuma's gt64260_mpsc driver to 2_4_devel since it seems to work reasonably well, and the code is mostly sane. If you have another mpsc driver, speak now or forever hold your peace. -- Troy Benjegerdes | master of mispeeling | 'da hozer' | hozer@drgw.net -----"If this message isn't misspelled, I didn't write it" -- Me ----- "Why do musicians compose symphonies and poets write poems? They do it because life wouldn't have any meaning for them if they didn't. That's why I draw cartoons. It's my life." -- Charles Schulz ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/