From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from yow.seanm.ca (toronto-hs-216-138-233-67.s-ip.magma.ca [216.138.233.67]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A828DE932 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 03:26:34 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:26:23 -0400 From: Sean MacLennan To: "Dale Farnsworth" Subject: Re: Warp patches for 2.6.26 Message-ID: <20080417132623.58f8dba7@lappy.seanm.ca> In-Reply-To: <20080417160804.GA696@farnsworth.org> References: <20080412134831.424480cf@lappy.seanm.ca> <20080413104430.c98244d2.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080412215544.38fa2d0b@lappy.seanm.ca> <20080417115045.7e4e6b1e@lappy.seanm.ca> <20080417160804.GA696@farnsworth.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:08:04 -0700 "Dale Farnsworth" wrote: > I didn't suggest splitting the patches or further modification of the > patches themselves. What I found lacking were the patch descriptions. > You need to describe in each patch (commit) commentary exactly what > the patch is intended to accomplish, and the rationale behind it. Ok, that makes more sense to me. Sorry that I read that wrong :( One last question.... would the warp_defconfig be considered part of the platform code? I think one of the problems was I split up the patches when really they all go together (again ignoring led and wdt). But I am not sure if the defconfig really goes with the platform code. Cheers, Sean