From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <17828.19395.906600.586578@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:13:23 +1100 From: Paul Mackerras To: Vitaly Bordug Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] [POWERPC] cpm2: Updates for CPM2 pic In-Reply-To: <20070110011124.20342.38130.stgit@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070110011124.20342.38130.stgit@localhost.localdomain> Cc: linuxppc-dev List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Vitaly Bordug writes: > > This contains important fixes for the CPM2 PIC code. Eliminated > CPM_IRQ_OFFSET, pulling the respective interrupt numbers from the interrupt > mapping. Updated devicetree files to reflect that. Changed direct > IC-related IO accesses to the IO accessors. I can't put these patches in for 2.6.20 with the titles and descriptions you have given. At this stage, for stuff to go into 2.6.20, you need to clearly identify what the problem is that you're fixing and give at least some indication of why it needs to be fixed for 2.6.20. If the code currently won't compile at all for some config, or is now completely wrong because of changes elsewhere, or could cause an oops, then we can fix it, but I need something better than just "Updates" in the title and a list of what changes you made in the description. At the moment I look at your patch titles and descriptions and think "that's nice, but why should it go in 2.6.20?" If you're fixing up something that worked in 2.6.19 but now doesn't work, that helps justify the change, but you need to say that. These comments apply particularly to patches 1 to 3 in your series. For patch 4/5 you at least told us that changes to io.h caused the breakage, but even there a bit more detail about what changes caused what breakage would be useful. However, at this stage, you need to resist the temptation to do other "overhaul and improvements" while you are there; just fix the bugs or breakages that you have identified in the description. Patch 5/5 is OK since it doesn't touch any actual code. Paul.