From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:32:48 +0100
Subject: Status of arch/arm in linux-next
In-Reply-To: <20110414143127.GB6259@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <20110414094447.GA1611@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<20110414110854.GF29938@atomide.com>
	<20110414120209.GG1611@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<20110414123126.GA3336@atomide.com>
	<20110414142026.GD1452@sirena.org.uk>
	<20110414143127.GB6259@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <20110414183248.GA8820@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 03:31:27PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 03:20:26PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Personally I had formed the impression that this was an understandable
> > reaction on the part of Russell that he was applying to his own trees
> > rather than a general policy that was being applied over all of arch/arm.

> Given that the non-platform stuff isn't the problem, such a policy has no
> effect if its restricted to the core code.

Oh, of course - I didn't read it as being about the code at all.  I'd
registered it as being about you prioritising your time and effort to
focus on this issue rather than anything else.