diff for duplicates of <51FA6723.9010608@gmail.com> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 9f48c65..b0aad21 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ On 08/01/2013 05:18 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: -> On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 17:26 -0400, jonsmirl at gmail.com wrote: +> On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 17:26 -0400, jonsmirl@gmail.com wrote: >> Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to get >> rid of the board specific code. But x86 doesn't have any of it, why >> should ARM? @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ On 08/01/2013 05:18 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > *not* being the 'legacy crap' in question...) > > We've even seen *recent* attempts to abandon the legacy crap in the -> embedded x86 space, which backtracked and added it all back again ? in +> embedded x86 space, which backtracked and added it all back again — in > part because x86 lacked any sane way to describe the hardware if it > wasn't pretending to be a PC. ACPI doesn't cut it, and DT "wasn't > invented here"... diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index fa45fd6..4e3ad82 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -8,14 +8,29 @@ "ref\020130731204817.GC24642@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk\0" "ref\0CAKON4Ozfe=endqnXWkcWR2HuJ489Otpcu2QsjB0DNg6jpRgG+Q@mail.gmail.com\0" "ref\01375352315.22084.138.camel@shinybook.infradead.org\0" - "From\0robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring)\0" - "Subject\0[Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?]\0" + "From\0Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com>\0" + "Subject\0Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?]\0" "Date\0Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:48:19 -0500\0" - "To\0linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org\0" + "To\0David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>\0" + "Cc\0jonsmirl@gmail.com <jonsmirl@gmail.com>" + Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> + Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> + devicetree@vger.kernel.org <devicetree@vger.kernel.org> + ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org <ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org> + Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> + Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@arm.com> + Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com> + linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> + Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> + Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> + Domenico Andreoli <cavokz@gmail.com> + mbizon@freebox.fr + Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> + " linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "On 08/01/2013 05:18 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:\n" - "> On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 17:26 -0400, jonsmirl at gmail.com wrote:\n" + "> On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 17:26 -0400, jonsmirl@gmail.com wrote:\n" ">> Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to get\n" ">> rid of the board specific code. But x86 doesn't have any of it, why\n" ">> should ARM?\n" @@ -30,7 +45,7 @@ "> *not* being the 'legacy crap' in question...)\n" "> \n" "> We've even seen *recent* attempts to abandon the legacy crap in the\n" - "> embedded x86 space, which backtracked and added it all back again ? in\n" + "> embedded x86 space, which backtracked and added it all back again \342\200\224 in\n" "> part because x86 lacked any sane way to describe the hardware if it\n" "> wasn't pretending to be a PC. ACPI doesn't cut it, and DT \"wasn't\n" "> invented here\"...\n" @@ -47,4 +62,4 @@ "\n" Rob -b4b8d6d19c6b91ba47669b6496abe41f9de33b9a576d7a813a1c52a58ec83265 +0e6e0a37a9feff09097318a4425d9209a93622930f608beef7b853f524c48251
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.