In message [off-list ref] Sylvain Munaut wrote:
Don't think so. Your patch applies to the 2.4 while Grant problem is
specific to the way the different functions of PSCs are handled to work
the 2.6 ppc_sys model.
btw, if not yet integrated you should send your patch to Wolfang, he's
the one maintaining that tree.
I'm subscribed here, too :-)
I've seen the patch, but did not decide yet what to do with it. Many
drivers don't support devfs anyway, and in my opinion devfs makes
little sense in embedded systems anyway. Not to mention that it will
officially be removed from the kernel tree in less than 4 weeks from
now (see Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt).
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft ... and the
only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor.
-- Wernher von Braun
Sylvain:
btw, if not yet integrated you should send your patch to Wolfang, he's
the one maintaining that tree.
Wolfgang:
I've seen the patch, but did not decide yet what to do with it. Many
drivers don't support devfs anyway, and in my opinion devfs makes
little sense in embedded systems anyway. Not to mention that it will
officially be removed from the kernel tree in less than 4 weeks from
now (see Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt).
This is nonsense. You know, when I made this patch I said
to myself, "Self, you're wasting your time, these guys won't take patches
from somebody they don't know" But I thought it was enough of a
no-brainer that it might go through.
Seems I was wrong.
Mark Chambers
On 6/9/05, Mark Chambers [off-list ref] wrote:
Sylvain:
quoted
btw, if not yet integrated you should send your patch to Wolfang, he's
the one maintaining that tree.
=20
Wolfgang:
quoted
I've seen the patch, but did not decide yet what to do with it. Many
drivers don't support devfs anyway, and in my opinion devfs makes
little sense in embedded systems anyway. Not to mention that it will
officially be removed from the kernel tree in less than 4 weeks from
now (see Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt).
=20
This is nonsense. You know, when I made this patch I said
to myself, "Self, you're wasting your time, these guys won't take patches
from somebody they don't know" But I thought it was enough of a
no-brainer that it might go through.
=20
Seems I was wrong.
=20
Don't take things too personally. (I understand where you're coming
from; I'm virtually unknown around here also). You have to remember
that devfs is pretty much considered to be a bastard stepchild and
there is a lot of negative opinion surrounding it. Because of that it
is very hard to get *any* devfs patches to be considered.
Just posting your patch on the ML is important and valuable. That
makes things easy when somebody else has the same problem. I
certainly remember seeing your original post, and I made note of it
for if I ever see that problem.
Cheers,
g.