From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from services.gcu-squad.org (zone0.gcu-squad.org [212.85.147.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79145DDF8D for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:17:17 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:16:57 +0200 From: Jean Delvare To: Laurent Pinchart Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc-pcf8563: Add device ids table Message-ID: <20080423131657.71d6312f@hyperion.delvare> In-Reply-To: <200804221612.06745.laurentp@cse-semaphore.com> References: <200804171708.32847.laurentp@cse-semaphore.com> <20080419162358.746b714c@hyperion.delvare> <480A2117.7020502@scram.de> <200804221612.06745.laurentp@cse-semaphore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linuxppc-dev list , Alessandro Zummo , rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, i2c@lm-sensors.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Laurent, On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:11:56 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Jean, > > On Saturday 19 April 2008 18:43, Jochen Friedrich wrote: > > Jean Delvare wrote: > > > I'm not sure. I didn't have the time to look at it myself, but I am > > > under the impression that the powerpc folks are tired of having to wait > > > for me and may push it to Linus through their tree? That would be fine > > > with me, as I don't want to be the one delaying something many > > > developers want (but I also can't sign patches I've not even read.) I still don't know exactly what happened there... I think I saw some "OpenFirmware i2c" patches go upstream yesterday? But not the ones listed below, which I thought they depended upon. > > The required patches are: > > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=17833 > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=17834 > > > > which are just the forward ported patches you sent to the poweprc mailing > > list some time ago: > > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=16282 > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=16283 > > Given that the required patches are just forward-ported versions of patches > you sent (and thus probably reviewed as well :-)), what's the best way to get > them in 2.6.26 (if at all possible) ? It's not that easy. A lot of new new-style i2c drivers have shown up in the kernel since I wrote my patches (themselves derived heavily from Jon Smirl's). Even if Jochen's patches are based on mine, we still need to take a careful look on how each driver is modified, I remember for example that some v4l drivers were using the original new-style driver binding in a way I did not expect. So I can't just sign these patches and hope they didn't break anything. It needs care, and this requires time. I will do my best to get this done before the 2.6.26 merge window closes, but I can't promise anything. -- Jean Delvare