From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:46:52 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Jean Delvare Cc: joakim.tjernlund@lumentis.se, mds@paradyne.com, linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org, sensors@Stimpy.netroedge.com Subject: Re: 8xx i2c refers to unspecified chip errata Message-ID: <20021118194651.GE18374@opus.bloom.county> References: <3DD939B5.3D1F2B6E@paradyne.com> <20021118204248.0a3b6bda.khali@linux-fr.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20021118204248.0a3b6bda.khali@linux-fr.org> Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 08:42:48PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > Patch was(and still is, I think) against linuxppc_2_4_devel. Don't > > know your tree, is it not the same as linuxppc? Anyhow, too much time > > has passed for me to remember all details and I don't have the time to > > go back and do it all over again. I suggest you take the linuxppc > > version, patch it and adopt it to your tree. > > Why the hell are there two different trees? :'( Can't we work all > together for a better result? Because the linuxppc tree doesn't track the whole i2c tree, as that would be quite silly. :) -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/