From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from xyzzy.farnsworth.org (xyzzy.farnsworth.org [65.39.95.219]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F351DF7E1 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 04:12:06 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:11:50 -0700 From: Dale Farnsworth To: Sean MacLennan Message-ID: <20080417181150.GA7139@farnsworth.org> References: <20080412134831.424480cf@lappy.seanm.ca> <20080413104430.c98244d2.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080412215544.38fa2d0b@lappy.seanm.ca> <20080417115045.7e4e6b1e@lappy.seanm.ca> <20080417160804.GA696@farnsworth.org> <20080417132623.58f8dba7@lappy.seanm.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20080417132623.58f8dba7@lappy.seanm.ca> Subject: Re: Warp patches for 2.6.26 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 01:26:23PM -0400, Sean MacLennan wrote: > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:08:04 -0700 > "Dale Farnsworth" wrote: > > > I didn't suggest splitting the patches or further modification of the > > patches themselves. What I found lacking were the patch descriptions. > > You need to describe in each patch (commit) commentary exactly what > > the patch is intended to accomplish, and the rationale behind it. > > Ok, that makes more sense to me. Sorry that I read that wrong :( No problem. > One last question.... would the warp_defconfig be considered part of > the platform code? I think one of the problems was I split up the > patches when really they all go together (again ignoring led and wdt). > But I am not sure if the defconfig really goes with the platform code. I would suggest adding the defconfig as the last patch of the "platform code" series. (A separate patch just containing the added defconfig.) -Dale