From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932258AbVKWTvp (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:51:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932266AbVKWTvp (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:51:45 -0500 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:42447 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932258AbVKWTvo (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:51:44 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:49:27 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Richard Purdie Cc: lenz@cs.wisc.edu, kernel list , Russell King Subject: Re: [PATCH] split sharpsl_pm.c into generic and corgi/spitz specific parts Message-ID: <20051123194927.GA22375@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20051123130350.GA23090@elf.ucw.cz> <1132754229.8016.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1132754229.8016.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > I'd like to see it applied... > > This diff looks much neater than the last one and I agree with the > principle of it. I don't think its the right time to apply it for two > reasons: > > 1. We probably shouldn't (can't?) make changes like this in -rc > kernels No, it does not really belong in -rc. I was hoping you would merge it in your tree so I do not have big patch here and could keep only collie changes... > I have a proposal for how we proceed with this: > > After 2.6.15 is released, I envisage a patch which splits the common > sections of sharpsl_pm.c into arm/common and arm/mach-pxa/sharpsl.h into > include/arm/hardware/sharpsl_pm.h. I'm happy to generate that patch if > necessary and pass it to Russell. I'll try and create a patch to show > the structure I'm aiming for in the next couple of days but at the > moment we don't know exactly which code is common and I'd prefer to try > and do the split in one go. Ok, works for me. So I'll now concentrate on getting collie working and leave infrastructure to you... > I did note your patch adds a copyright header to a file you're mostly > deleting code from? I actually did add some collie parts into it, and then deleted everything #ifdef collie from that. Sorry. Pavel -- Thanks, Sharp!