From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from buildserver.ru.mvista.com (unknown [85.21.88.6]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A40DDDDFD for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:11:11 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:09:49 +0300 From: Vitaly Bordug To: Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] [POWERPC] cpm2: Updates for CPM2 pic Message-ID: <20070110080949.5a0bf1a7@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <17828.19395.906600.586578@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <20070110011124.20342.38130.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <17828.19395.906600.586578@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_+8loV_rfyKRvHwbA=RbPfjZ"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 Cc: linuxppc-dev List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --Sig_+8loV_rfyKRvHwbA=RbPfjZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:13:23 +1100 Paul Mackerras wrote: > Vitaly Bordug writes: > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > I can't put these patches in for 2.6.20 with the titles and > descriptions you have given. >=20 well that is to say, mpc8272 is utterly broken without patch 1, as interrup= t controller will not work at all. 8560's cpm2-related will be hosed too (hence no uart, heh) > 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?" >=20 OK. I'll update descriptions and resubmit > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 All above is quite right, however patch 4 does not contain extra code iirc= (that do not address breakages), I just kept same description it used to have at initial revision, submitted= during merge window.=20 > Patch 5/5 is OK since it doesn't touch any actual code >=20 Thanks for looking over this stuff such promptly... > Paul. --Sig_+8loV_rfyKRvHwbA=RbPfjZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFpHUeuOg9JvQhSEsRAgHcAJsF4I7ALje+3i5skQv51yqZVVFV3QCfR3vn W5IqH/f25kkUWhw9Vb1Hx+4= =77Ms -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_+8loV_rfyKRvHwbA=RbPfjZ--