Re: [PATCH 0/6] PS3: gelic: gelic updates for 2.6.25

[Geoff Levand <geoffrey.levand@am.sony.com>]

On 01/22/2008 04:58 PM, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:40:34AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 16:12 -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 07:38:28PM +0900, Masakazu Mokuno wrote:
>> > 
>> > > Here is a set of updates for PS3 gelic network driver.
>> > > This patch set requires other patches which were already submitted by
>> > > Geert (http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119626095605487).
>> > > 
>> > > 	[1] PS3: gelic: Fix the wrong dev_id passed
>> > > 	[2] PS3: gelic: Add endianness macros
>> > > 	[3] PS3: gelic: Code cleanup
>> > > 	[4] PS3: gelic: Remove duplicated ethtool handers
>> > > 	[5] PS3: gelic: Add support for port link status
>> > > 	[6] PS3: gelic: Add support for dual network interface
>> > > 
>> > > This is also a set of prerequisite for new wireless driver for PS3, which
>> > > I'll submit later. 
>> > 
>> > These seem to not have been applied, but I couldn't find any stated
>> > reason.  Did they just get lost?  Withdrawn?
>> > 
>> > Will these be applied?  There is a wireless patch that depends on them.
>> > If not, will the wireless portion be refactored to not require these
>> > patches?
>> 
>> The list of 6 patches above are the patches that Masakazu Mukono is
>> submitting, the pre-reqs are different patches (see the linked URL),
>> though I can't see them in either (they should probably go through
>> paulus for-2.6.25). Geert, what's up with these ?
> 
> The wireless patch depends on the patches 1-6, which then depend on
> Geert's patches.
> 
> I thought Geert's had been applied, but I guess I was looking at
> it wrong.  Is there a powerpc tree that has them?

Not yet, they are now only in ps3-linux.git.  I sent them out to
Paul last Friday the 18th for inclusion in 2.6.25.  Here is a link
to the message:

  http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2008-January/050213.html

> Perhaps 1-6 above
> and the wireless patch should just be applied to that tree (if there
> is one) and all merged together?

I think Paul will accept them if they have the Sign-off-by's of
the proper network maintainers.

-Geoff