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 3FA51DE050 for ; Thu, 3 May 2007 01:54:42 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <46389D85.7000301@garzik.org> 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> <46389D85.7000301@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <9B877BC8-C064-4CD1-9325-5C3EA925346E@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 10:53:35 -0500 To: Jeff Garzik 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: , On May 2, 2007, at 9:17 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > 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. I haven't sent a patch, just asking the question if I need to break it up or not. - k