On May 2, 2007, at 9:17 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:

Kumar Gala wrote:

quoted

On Apr 28, 2007, at 10:47 PM, David Miller wrote:

quoted

From: Stephen Rothwell <redacted>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:44:46 +1000

quoted

So can I take this as a future OK for architecture specific network
drivers changes to go through the architecture trees (cc'd to you)?

It's been my experience that if I'm just working through some
platform or bus specific API changes, people like Jeff tend to
not mind if it goes via ARCH trees and the like.

Is this acceptable?   Just want to make sure before I ask Paul to  
pull some changes that touches the following drivers:
drivers/net/fs_enet/mac-scc.c           |    2 +-
drivers/net/ucc_geth.c                  |   30 ++++----
drivers/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_cpm1.c |    4 +-
drivers/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_cpm2.c |    4 +-

I don't see a patch, just a diffstat.

I haven't sent a patch, just asking the question if I need to break  
it up or not.

- k