EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs
msokolov at ivan.Harhan.ORG
Thu Mar 21 11:47:55 EST 2002
Tom Rini <trini at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> Because you enjoy our conversations? :)
Normally I do, but then we got on the subject of which patches should or
shouldn't be accepted, and I'm not going to discuss that with anyone except the
actual responsible maintainers.
> And then you'll have to go and improve the patch anyhow, if you're going
> to stick to your word. :)
Oh sure, I have a ton of improvements in mind, I just want to do them one step
at a time, i.e., not work on patch N+1 until N is in the tree.
> How is that a step backward?
The steps forward are linuxppc_2_4_devel -> linuxppc_2_4 -> Marcelo -> 2.4
tarballs on kernel.org -> Debian, Yellow Dog, etc. Sidetrack trees like
2_4_galileo are a step backward.
> All of the current galileo work is in that
No, a better competing version of the GT-64260 work is in the 2_4_msokolov tree
on my machine.
> And a quick diff of the enet drivers in the two trees shows a
> good deal of differences, many of which aren't just cosmetic. Isn't it
> more 'natural' to update the most up to date file?
The gt64260_eth driver in both trees is so busted that I plan to rewrite it
from scratch anyway like I already did with the rest of the GT-64260 code. (And
when I do I'll make it vastly superior to yours to convince Paulus/Marcelo to
use it over yours.)
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-dev