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]

Message-ID: <20110318154839.GB3393@pulham.picochip.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:48:39 +0000
From:	Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>,
	Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@...site.dk>,
	"avictor.za@...il.com" <avictor.za@...il.com>,
	plagnioj@...osoft.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	nicolas.ferre@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/9] macb: unify at91 and avr32 platform data

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.

Jamie
--
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