From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nommos.sslcatacombnetworking.com (nommos.sslcatacombnetworking.com [67.18.224.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45FDADDFB5 for ; Thu, 3 May 2007 00:16:28 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20070428.204754.62343452.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20070427145508.9c5641a2.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <4633689E.50900@garzik.org> <20070429114446.31f40a30.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20070428.204754.62343452.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <3802D7AD-67EC-4FA2-B361-A388AFCB0B94@kernel.crashing.org> From: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Rename get_property to of_get_property: drivers/net Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 09:15:36 -0500 To: David Miller Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, jeff@garzik.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Apr 28, 2007, at 10:47 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Stephen Rothwell > Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:44:46 +1000 > >> So can I take this as a future OK for architecture specific network >> drivers changes to go through the architecture trees (cc'd to you)? > > It's been my experience that if I'm just working through some > platform or bus specific API changes, people like Jeff tend to > not mind if it goes via ARCH trees and the like. Is this acceptable? Just want to make sure before I ask Paul to pull some changes that touches the following drivers: drivers/net/fs_enet/mac-scc.c | 2 +- drivers/net/ucc_geth.c | 30 ++++---- drivers/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_cpm1.c | 4 +- drivers/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_cpm2.c | 4 +- But is related to an arch API cleanup. - k