board specific defines in commproc.h !?!?
Steven Scholz
steven.scholz at imc-berlin.de
Tue Jun 18 03:46:27 EST 2002
Tom Rini wrote:
> > - is
> > the only way to get ANY patches into the _working_ tree really
> > through 2.5?
>
> Well, for the moment I'd like to try that. Considering there's really 4
> (kernel.org, linuxppc_2_4, linuxppc_2_4_devel, DENX) trees people use right
> now, I'd like to try and remove at least one of those.
>
> And since we're stuck between a rock and a hard place, wrt killing
> 2_4_devel right now, lets use linuxppc-2.5 (or linux-2.5) which has
> 98% of the changes in _devel (and I think 100%, wrt 8xx).
>
> > Why must we go through the pain to fix a lot of
> > unrelated problems in a tree we don't really care about (yet) just to
> > fix things?
>
> Fixing 2 things. And it will be a lot less painful now trying to fix 2,
> recently broken things, rather than waiting 6 months to fix 5 or 10
> broken things spanning 6-8 months.
Tom,
does that mean that you will _not_ accept small patches fixing small
problems!?
I can remember you (?) always telling the people the split their patches
into small pieces doing one thing at a time!
So why not fix first things first?
The DEFINES I am talking about are Ethernet related (SCC/FEC). I think
they should move into the board specific header files. And they have
nothing to with the I2C stuff! Or did I miss something?
Cheers,
Steven
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-embedded
mailing list