From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com (e35.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.153]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e35.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B47DDEBE for ; Tue, 15 May 2007 12:43:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l4F2h6b4028943 for ; Mon, 14 May 2007 22:43:06 -0400 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l4F2h5uY257954 for ; Mon, 14 May 2007 20:43:05 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l4F2h5d2025191 for ; Mon, 14 May 2007 20:43:05 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Bamboo platform support From: Josh Boyer To: Stephen Rothwell In-Reply-To: <20070515120321.8385a60f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> References: <1179154608.3420.21.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1179154743.3420.25.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20070515105837.204d080f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <1179191003.3420.78.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20070515120321.8385a60f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 21:42:52 -0500 Message-Id: <1179196972.3420.100.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 12:03 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2007 20:03:23 -0500 Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > Wasn't by accident. I was following the lead of what was done for > > Ebony/440GP (which is actually broken at the moment but has a patch > > pending to comment it out as above). > > > > There is no ethernet period without the new EMAC rewrite and I'd like to > > leave the select there but commented out to serve as a placeholder if > > nothing else. Of course, if there are lots of objections it can be > > pulled. > > Sorry, I misunderstood. That's fine. Thanks Stephen. I can see how it would be misleading without some sort of explanation. I'll be sure to note it in future revisions. josh