From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 02 16:47:55 PST From: msokolov@ivan.Harhan.ORG (Michael Sokolov) Message-Id: <0203210047.AA15633@ivan.Harhan.ORG> To: linux-galileo@source.mvista.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Tom Rini wrote: > Because you enjoy our conversations? :) Normally I do, but then we got on the subject of which patches should or shouldn't be accepted, and I'm not going to discuss that with anyone except the actual responsible maintainers. > And then you'll have to go and improve the patch anyhow, if you're going > to stick to your word. :) Oh sure, I have a ton of improvements in mind, I just want to do them one step at a time, i.e., not work on patch N+1 until N is in the tree. > How is that a step backward? The steps forward are linuxppc_2_4_devel -> linuxppc_2_4 -> Marcelo -> 2.4 tarballs on kernel.org -> Debian, Yellow Dog, etc. Sidetrack trees like 2_4_galileo are a step backward. > All of the current galileo work is in that > tree. No, a better competing version of the GT-64260 work is in the 2_4_msokolov tree on my machine. > And a quick diff of the enet drivers in the two trees shows a > good deal of differences, many of which aren't just cosmetic. Isn't it > more 'natural' to update the most up to date file? The gt64260_eth driver in both trees is so busted that I plan to rewrite it from scratch anyway like I already did with the rest of the GT-64260 code. (And when I do I'll make it vastly superior to yours to convince Paulus/Marcelo to use it over yours.) MS ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/