From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:31:59 +0100
Subject: READ THIS: the next mach-types update
In-Reply-To: <20110915145022.GM28104@game.jcrosoft.org>
References: <20110915102528.GI6267@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<20110915145022.GM28104@game.jcrosoft.org>
Message-ID: <20110916073159.GC22533@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:50:22PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> On 11:25 Thu 15 Sep     , Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > I'm going to be merging a mach-types update (the cut-down and the
> > policy-conforming version) for the next merge window.  This will mean
> > that things WILL BREAK, and I will not notice that things have broken.
> > 
> > In order to fix this, entries need to be fixed to conform to the
> > requirements - where the machine_is_xxx() name is the same as the
> > MACH_TYPE_xxx name and the CONFIG_MACH_xxx name too.
> > 
> > Moreover, entries older than 12 months which have not been merged will
> > be removed.  It is not possible to automatically check for machine_is_xxx()
> > usages as these could conflict with other architectures, and I'm
> > certainly NOT checking for them by hand (I estimate that'd take a
> > significant amount of manual effort to do.)  What that means is that it
> > is _important_ to get the core platform support in _first_ before any
> > drivers which may make use of this.
> > 
> > The following will be deleted from the file this time around are:
> > -ts_x09                  MACH_TS209              TS209                   1565
> > -at572d940hfek           MACH_AT572D940HFEB      AT572D940HFEB           1783
> can be dropped the at572d940hfek as the at572d940hf is drop from mainline
> 
> Russell an you confirm you will re-add the usb-a9g20 and the folowing one
> 
> usb_a9g20               MACH_USB_A9G20          USB_A9G20               1841
> qil_a9g20               MACH_QIL_A9G20          QIL_A9G20               1844
> tny_a9260               MACH_TNY_A9260          TNY_A9260               2058
> tny_a9g20               MACH_TNY_A9G20          TNY_A9G20               2059
> tny_a9263               MACH_TNY_A9263          TNY_A9263               2140

Here's the two relevent question:
1. have they been submitted or edited within the last 12 months?  No.
2. are they merged into mainline?  No.

So will they be in the update?  No.