From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tixy@yxit.co.uk (Tixy) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:22:47 +0000 Subject: [RFC][PATCH] ARM: kirkwood: Remove eSATA SheevaPlug board support In-Reply-To: References: <1322737480.9622.5.camel@phoenix> <1322912383.2378.79.camel@computer2> <1323155228.2237.10.camel@computer2> Message-ID: <1323202967.3019.12.camel@computer2> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 14:45 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, Tixy wrote: > > > On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 13:00 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Tixy wrote: > > > > [PATCH] Fix machine_is_xxx() naming for eSata SheevaPlug and QNAP TS-209 > > > > > > > > The eSata SheevaPlug and QNAP TS-209 devices were removed from > > > > mach-types due to naming mismatches between machine_is_xxx(), CONFIG_XXX > > > > and MACH_TYPE_XXX. > > > > > > > > This patch fixes those mismatches and adds the devices back into > > > > mach-types. > > > > > > > > Cc: Nicolas Pitre > > > > Cc: Lennert Buytenhek > > > > Cc: Russell King > > > > Signed-off-by: Jon Medhurst > > > > > > Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre > > > > > > Obviously, the change to mach-types should be done in the machine > > > registry database as well by RMK. > > > > Which tree should this go through? Russell's or arm-soc? > > The arm-soc tree is probably more appropriate. Don't include the > mach-types changes though as it is preferable if they come through RMK's > database updates. It's already gone through Russell's tree. I realised that a mach-types patch couldn't go into arm-soc as that doesn't have the removed machine entries, and the only other changes in linux-next for the sheevaplug and ts209 files were from Russell's tree anyway. And finally, I thought that Russel's mach-types generation script would want to see the fixed files in his tree, otherwise it would want to delete the machine entries. -- Tixy