From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dwalker@codeaurora.org (Daniel Walker) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:44:14 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] arm: return both physical and virtual addresses from addruart In-Reply-To: <20101018221353.GE20376@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1283303270.566757.315468531956.2.gpush@pororo> <1287439266.5588.64.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> <20101018221353.GE20376@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <1287441854.5588.100.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 23:13 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 03:01:06PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 09:07 +0800, Jeremy Kerr wrote: > > > > > --- > > > arch/arm/kernel/debug.S | 22 +- > > > arch/arm/mach-aaec2000/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 10 > > > arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 8 > > > arch/arm/mach-clps711x/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 12 - > > > arch/arm/mach-cns3xxx/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 10 > > > arch/arm/mach-davinci/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 46 ++-- > > > arch/arm/mach-dove/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 11 - > > > arch/arm/mach-ebsa110/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 7 > > > arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 11 - > > > arch/arm/mach-footbridge/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 22 -- > > > arch/arm/mach-gemini/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 8 > > > arch/arm/mach-h720x/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 10 > > > arch/arm/mach-integrator/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 10 > > > arch/arm/mach-iop13xx/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 16 - > > > arch/arm/mach-iop32x/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 7 > > > arch/arm/mach-iop33x/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 12 - > > > arch/arm/mach-ixp2000/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 14 - > > > arch/arm/mach-ixp23xx/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 11 - > > > arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 16 - > > > arch/arm/mach-kirkwood/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 11 - > > > arch/arm/mach-ks8695/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 8 > > > arch/arm/mach-l7200/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 38 +++ > > > arch/arm/mach-lh7a40x/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 10 > > > arch/arm/mach-loki/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 11 - > > > arch/arm/mach-mmp/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 11 - > > > arch/arm/mach-msm/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 10 > > > > Firstly, you should try to break this kind of patch up if you can. > > That's already been covered today with you. You're not listening. > It can not be split up. It is one logical change. Splitting it up > will break the build for everything until the entire patch is merged. I said "if you can" I didn't say "break this patch up." I also said "in the future" so I'm not talking about this patch anymore.. > > Secondly, you need to CC all the effected sub-architecture maintainers. > > It's not acceptable to assume that everyone effected will magically > > stumble onto this patch and know you modifying their sub-architecture .. > > Read the friggin subject line. linux-arm-kernel is where generic changes > get discussed all the time. These changes will impact platform support. > Sometimes that's not going to be obvious that it affects your platform. > You need to be reading those changes. Look at the subject line of each > mail and decide whether it's something that you need to look at. That's not addressing the problem .. I don't actually care about this change, all I care about is that it's changing files in my tree and I need to keep aware of it so it doesn't cause problems down the line. It's not about patch content. I can't look at the subject line and know that this patches is modifying files in my tree. > In any case, it's not practical to copy a patch to 209 people - with > some 8K of CC or To line. Then don't CC 8k people, no one is saying you have to CC all 209. You just have to CC the maintainers. > Why aren't you using this time which I've given you to resolve your > problem? I will send you a pull request by your deadline, even if I don't I understand the consequences (which you have alerted me too). Daniel -- Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.