From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3BADDDDEB for ; Sat, 15 Sep 2007 04:50:16 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20070914133710.541f0dbb@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> References: <20070914122510.6dffb747@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <16B381A2-66F5-4E7A-BDDC-6E536296C933@kernel.crashing.org> <20070914133710.541f0dbb@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: Please pull from for-2.6.24 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:49:59 +0200 To: Josh Boyer Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org list" , Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >>>> Dropped for now. I doubt we want this based on Segher's comments. >>>> (pretty sure its a ts108 on the hpc2 board). >>> >>> It is a tsi108 on hpc2. Holly has tsi109. From a Linux perspective, >>> there is no difference. And the comment Segher made on the list was >>> "Looks good, thanks!" So what other comment are you talking about? >> >> I think that was to the .dts clean ups. The patch from Roy wasn't >> part of that. >> >> http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2007-September/042499.html > > Nope, on the original patch: > > http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2007-July/039289.html > > Guess Segher changed his mind :) I didn't notice this issue before, that's all :-) >> But, I think segher is right in saying we should have tsi109 props if >> the HW is actually tsi108. > > Yeah, that's probably true. Segher