From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:19:31 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Michael Sokolov Cc: linux-galileo@source.mvista.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs Message-ID: <20020320161931.GF3762@opus.bloom.county> References: <20020320131924.29210@mailhost.mipsys.com> <0203201530.AA09802@ivan.Harhan.ORG> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <0203201530.AA09802@ivan.Harhan.ORG> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 07:30:38AM -0800, Michael Sokolov wrote: > > benh@kernel.crashing.org wrote: > > > This is the wrong approach. What we should do instead is have the gt eth > > driver > > do some kind of find_bi_rec(BI_GT64260_ETH_CFG). setup.c doesn't have to be > > changed each time a new birec is added, and your approach seem wrong if > > that driver ever becomes a module. > > Then push my patch defining the new bi_recs, and once it's in I'll make another > one to implement what you just suggested. But if patches aren't being accepted > there is no incentive for me to make or improve them. Sure there is, for it to be accepted. And would you please make it versus the _galileo tree so that other users of GT-64260 can easily test your changes? -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/