netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 3/9] macb: unify at91 and avr32 platform data

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:49:56 +0800
From:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>,
	Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@...site.dk>,
	"avictor.za@...il.com" <avictor.za@...il.com>,
	plagnioj@...osoft.com
CC:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/9] macb: unify at91 and avr32 platform data

On 3/18/2011 11:54 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux :
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 03:48:39PM +0000, Jamie Iles wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 03:41:18PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 09:51:01PM +0000, Jamie Iles wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 09:34:03AM +0000, Jamie Iles wrote:
>>>>> Ok, I'll rename to macb_platform_data and update at91_ether to use 
>>>>> that with a comment describing that we're sharing the platform data 
>>>>> with macb.  At least that gets rid of the preprocessor stuff in 
>>>>> board.h for at91 too.
>>>>
>>>> So here's the updated patch with changes to the at91_ether driver to 
>>>> share the data with macb.
>>>>
>>>> Russell, are you happy to take this series?  If so, how would you prefer 
>>>> it, in the patch system or as a git pull?
>>>
>>> As Nicolas Ferre is listed in MAINTAINERS as being responsible for the
>>> MACB driver, I think he should at last Ack these patches first.
>>
>> OK, that's absolutely fine with me.
>>
>>> I'm also concious of the fact that Linus complains if my tree contains
>>> changes for drivers/ stuff as well as ARM stuff, so I'm nervous about
>>> taking it as-is.  So, I'd rather see drivers stuff separated as much
>>> as possible from the arch updates.
>>
>> I happy to split the driver and arch updates, but I'm not sure that it 
>> can be done in such a way that platforms would build between the arch 
>> and driver merges.
>>
>>> I'm also concious that this has become ready for potentially merging
>>> during the merge window, and therefore hasn't had previous exposure
>>> in linux-next, and so should wait until the next merge window.  I do
>>> feel that I'm going to be yelled at for saying that... but I'm sure
>>> I'll also be yelled at if I did take it.
>>
>> I don't have any problem with waiting until the next merge window, and 
>> to be honest I'd like see these patches have some time in next as I 
>> can't test them on devices with a MACB.
> 
> Okay, that sounds like a very good reason to wait until Nicolas can
> review them and provide an ack.

Be sure that I am silently following this series in the background (too
silently ? ;-) ). I will provide an ack after a last review and testing
but as you have all fruitfully discussed main aspects I am very happy
with the way it is going.

Thanks to all of you, best regards,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html