Dear Tom,
in message [off-list ref] you wrote:
No, but I do wonder if you ever plan on sending anything out again. It
Has anything significantly changed? Patches/extensions are still
accepted for 2.5 only, right? Does this tree work for 8xx systems?
IIRC the last time we such discussions simply nothing happened: see
for example to code for dp_alloc / dp_free that was submitted several
times. Or see thread "set_rtc_time() cleanup / normalization" in May
this year.
If you suggest there is a way to get patches really included into the
"official" trees, please let me know how to do this.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd@denx.de
You see things; and you say ``Why?'' But I dream things that never
were; and I say ``Why not?''
- George Bernard Shaw _Back to Methuselah_ (1921) pt. 1, act 1
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:29:16PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Tom,
in message [off-list ref] you wrote:
quoted
No, but I do wonder if you ever plan on sending anything out again. It
Has anything significantly changed? Patches/extensions are still
accepted for 2.5 only, right? Does this tree work for 8xx systems?
2.5 untested, so that when 2.6 rolls around there is less pain for all,
and 2.4 tested. This hasn't changed, and is becoming a bit more of a
trend even outside of the PPC world. It's not even that hard to test
now, doing 'make ARCH=ppc CROSS_COMPILE=foo arch/ppc/foo/bar.o' will
work and is a feature of the new build system.
IIRC the last time we such discussions simply nothing happened: see
for example to code for dp_alloc / dp_free that was submitted several
times.
google knows nothing of this, can you give a pointer into the thread
please? Thanks.
Or see thread "set_rtc_time() cleanup / normalization" in May
this year.
I just re-read most of it, and Gabriel Paubert, who wrote most / all of
that code, and is the 'maintainer' of sorts objected, a few solutions to
make everyone happy were proposed (ppc_md hook or similar, I believe)
and no further patch was submitted.
If you suggest there is a way to get patches really included into the
"official" trees, please let me know how to do this.
As always, send things in functional hunks. If for example, the 8xx /
8260 enet and serial drivers (Of note: the 4xx enet driver now falls
into this catagory) in 2.6 get moved into drivers/serial (And rewritten)
and drivers/net (cleaned up?), rmk (serial maintainer) and Jeff Garzik
(net driver maintainer) aren't going to take a large patch without at
least as much griping as I've made in the past, if not more. And when
someone comments on the reasoning, logic, or suggests an alternate way
of doing things for people which need the current behavior / whatever,
re-spin the patch. All of the patches you've submitted to me like this,
AFAIK, have either been accepted, or I've told you I cannot take that
patch, it needs to be sent elsewhere.
--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:29:16PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
[snip]
quoted
IIRC the last time we such discussions simply nothing happened: see
for example to code for dp_alloc / dp_free that was submitted several
times.
google knows nothing of this, can you give a pointer into the thread
please? Thanks.
I was the one that sent the patches (search for dpalloc).
A link to the thread in the archive is here.
http://lists.linuxppc.org/linuxppc-embedded/200212/msg00302.html
As it stands I maintain them for the linuxppc_2_4_devel tree
and I'm waiting for the 2.5 to build in order to port them
there and resubmit.
--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
Regards
Pantelis
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/