From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3D0E2073.989C8826@imc-berlin.de> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:46:27 +0200 From: Steven Scholz MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Rini Cc: Wolfgang Denk , LinuxPPC Subject: Re: board specific defines in commproc.h !?!? References: <20020617153255.GS13541@opus.bloom.county> <20020617172510.22BB1102FB@denx.denx.de> <20020617173550.GV13541@opus.bloom.county> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Tom Rini wrote: > > - is > > the only way to get ANY patches into the _working_ tree really > > through 2.5? > > Well, for the moment I'd like to try that. Considering there's really 4 > (kernel.org, linuxppc_2_4, linuxppc_2_4_devel, DENX) trees people use right > now, I'd like to try and remove at least one of those. > > And since we're stuck between a rock and a hard place, wrt killing > 2_4_devel right now, lets use linuxppc-2.5 (or linux-2.5) which has > 98% of the changes in _devel (and I think 100%, wrt 8xx). > > > Why must we go through the pain to fix a lot of > > unrelated problems in a tree we don't really care about (yet) just to > > fix things? > > Fixing 2 things. And it will be a lot less painful now trying to fix 2, > recently broken things, rather than waiting 6 months to fix 5 or 10 > broken things spanning 6-8 months. Tom, does that mean that you will _not_ accept small patches fixing small problems!? I can remember you (?) always telling the people the split their patches into small pieces doing one thing at a time! So why not fix first things first? The DEFINES I am talking about are Ethernet related (SCC/FEC). I think they should move into the board specific header files. And they have nothing to with the I2C stuff! Or did I miss something? Cheers, Steven ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/