From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.dvmed.net (srv5.dvmed.net [207.36.208.214]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 058C0DDF12 for ; Thu, 3 May 2007 00:18:01 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <46389D85.7000301@garzik.org> Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 10:17:41 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Rename get_property to of_get_property: drivers/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> <3802D7AD-67EC-4FA2-B361-A388AFCB0B94@kernel.crashing.org> In-Reply-To: <3802D7AD-67EC-4FA2-B361-A388AFCB0B94@kernel.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, David Miller List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Kumar Gala wrote: > > 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 +- I don't see a patch, just a diffstat. Jeff