From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Guan Xuetao" Subject: RE: Request for unicore32 architecture codes to merge into linux-next Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:33:44 +0800 Message-ID: <01bf01cbb6f2$cdba4a70$692edf50$@mprc.pku.edu.cn> References: <004901cbb4d5$b9bb1370$2d313a50$@mprc.pku.edu.cn> <20110118043323.GF2122@linux-sh.org> <01b501cbb6ef$3299f2a0$97cdd7e0$@mprc.pku.edu.cn> <20110118091032.GA18525@linux-sh.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mprc.pku.edu.cn ([162.105.203.9]:40255 "EHLO mprc.pku.edu.cn" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752323Ab1ARJeL (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jan 2011 04:34:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20110118091032.GA18525@linux-sh.org> Content-Language: zh-cn Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: 'Paul Mundt' Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, 'Arnd Bergmann' , gregkh@suse.de, jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, dtor@mail.ru, rubini@cvml.unipv.it, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Paul Mundt > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:11 PM > To: Guan Xuetao > Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au; 'Arnd Bergmann'; gregkh@suse.de; jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org; dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com; dtor@mail.ru; > rubini@cvml.unipv.it; linux-arch@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org; linux- > next@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: Request for unicore32 architecture codes to merge into linux-next > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 05:07:41PM +0800, Guan Xuetao wrote: > > IMO, the whole architecture specific codes need to be merged first, and only some > > necessary drivers are included under staging. Then, I could split the staging drivers > > into corresponding mail-list, and then, additional drivers. > > Otherwise, there are no architecture basic for drivers review. > > > That's of course fine so long as the driver changes are reasonably > self-contained. The situation we want to avoid is that you end up with > drivers that depend on some private infrastructure of API where not > enough context is provided when the two are decoupled. > > In any event, the architecture bits are the most self-contained and have > had the most review of anything in this series of patches, so it probably > makes sense to work on getting those bits integrated and then dealing > with the rest incrementally. Then, I should: 1. merge reviewed arch dir and reviewed drivers (for now, i8042) 2. submit staging drivers to review Am I right? Thanks. Guan Xuetao From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Guan Xuetao" Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:33:44 +0000 Subject: RE: Request for unicore32 architecture codes to merge into linux-next Message-Id: <01bf01cbb6f2$cdba4a70$692edf50$@mprc.pku.edu.cn> List-Id: References: <004901cbb4d5$b9bb1370$2d313a50$@mprc.pku.edu.cn> <20110118043323.GF2122@linux-sh.org> <01b501cbb6ef$3299f2a0$97cdd7e0$@mprc.pku.edu.cn> <20110118091032.GA18525@linux-sh.org> In-Reply-To: <20110118091032.GA18525@linux-sh.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: 'Paul Mundt' Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, 'Arnd Bergmann' , gregkh@suse.de, jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, dtor@mail.ru, rubini@cvml.unipv.it, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Paul Mundt > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:11 PM > To: Guan Xuetao > Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au; 'Arnd Bergmann'; gregkh@suse.de; jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org; dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com; dtor@mail.ru; > rubini@cvml.unipv.it; linux-arch@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org; linux- > next@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: Request for unicore32 architecture codes to merge into linux-next > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 05:07:41PM +0800, Guan Xuetao wrote: > > IMO, the whole architecture specific codes need to be merged first, and only some > > necessary drivers are included under staging. Then, I could split the staging drivers > > into corresponding mail-list, and then, additional drivers. > > Otherwise, there are no architecture basic for drivers review. > > > That's of course fine so long as the driver changes are reasonably > self-contained. The situation we want to avoid is that you end up with > drivers that depend on some private infrastructure of API where not > enough context is provided when the two are decoupled. > > In any event, the architecture bits are the most self-contained and have > had the most review of anything in this series of patches, so it probably > makes sense to work on getting those bits integrated and then dealing > with the rest incrementally. Then, I should: 1. merge reviewed arch dir and reviewed drivers (for now, i8042) 2. submit staging drivers to review Am I right? Thanks. Guan Xuetao From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753398Ab1ARJeN (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jan 2011 04:34:13 -0500 Received: from mprc.pku.edu.cn ([162.105.203.9]:40255 "EHLO mprc.pku.edu.cn" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752323Ab1ARJeL (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jan 2011 04:34:11 -0500 From: "Guan Xuetao" To: "'Paul Mundt'" Cc: , "'Arnd Bergmann'" , , , , , , , , , References: <004901cbb4d5$b9bb1370$2d313a50$@mprc.pku.edu.cn> <20110118043323.GF2122@linux-sh.org> <01b501cbb6ef$3299f2a0$97cdd7e0$@mprc.pku.edu.cn> <20110118091032.GA18525@linux-sh.org> In-Reply-To: <20110118091032.GA18525@linux-sh.org> Subject: RE: Request for unicore32 architecture codes to merge into linux-next Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:33:44 +0800 Message-ID: <01bf01cbb6f2$cdba4a70$692edf50$@mprc.pku.edu.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQKvmpDs5qji3UzzcGj9LCTNHzRliwD+9+G3Agb64f8BNk04jZHsygIg Content-Language: zh-cn Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Paul Mundt > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:11 PM > To: Guan Xuetao > Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au; 'Arnd Bergmann'; gregkh@suse.de; jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org; dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com; dtor@mail.ru; > rubini@cvml.unipv.it; linux-arch@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org; linux- > next@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: Request for unicore32 architecture codes to merge into linux-next > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 05:07:41PM +0800, Guan Xuetao wrote: > > IMO, the whole architecture specific codes need to be merged first, and only some > > necessary drivers are included under staging. Then, I could split the staging drivers > > into corresponding mail-list, and then, additional drivers. > > Otherwise, there are no architecture basic for drivers review. > > > That's of course fine so long as the driver changes are reasonably > self-contained. The situation we want to avoid is that you end up with > drivers that depend on some private infrastructure of API where not > enough context is provided when the two are decoupled. > > In any event, the architecture bits are the most self-contained and have > had the most review of anything in this series of patches, so it probably > makes sense to work on getting those bits integrated and then dealing > with the rest incrementally. Then, I should: 1. merge reviewed arch dir and reviewed drivers (for now, i8042) 2. submit staging drivers to review Am I right? Thanks. Guan Xuetao