From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757089Ab0IHAZ1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Sep 2010 20:25:27 -0400 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:51489 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756480Ab0IHAZY (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Sep 2010 20:25:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 16:57:04 -0700 From: Greg KH To: David Cross Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] west bridge, kconfig and hal fixes Message-ID: <20100907235704.GC12823@kroah.com> References: <5BFACB1451C1459BA8562A5561D0A4E6@stanford.edu> <1283386101.17399.10.camel@odc-laptop> <1283467434.4378.11.camel@odc-laptop> <1283887330.7250.6.camel@odc-laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1283887330.7250.6.camel@odc-laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 12:22:10PM -0700, David Cross wrote: First off, what's with the "Re:" of the Subject? What are you responding to here? > This patch contains the kconfig changes necessary to fix build errors > that could come up in the linux-next version. It also includes an > additional HAL layer for the west bridge CRAM interface. Again, one patch per change, please break this up. > The inclusion > of this interface support did require the reorganization of some of the > existing code, which is part of the reason for the size of the patch. > Moving files and directories makes this patch seem larger than it really > is. If you use git you can send a patch that properly shows only what changes even if the file is moved. Care to do that? > The Kconfig changes are closely related to the inclusion of the CRAM > HAL layer, and as such this patch is difficult to logically separate. Why is it necessary? > The linux-next tree does not seem to have a config for the zoom2, and > trying to build it for that board seems to make the compilation break. Why should the driver care about which arch it is built for? It should build on _all_ arches, right? > As such, the only thing that I tested was compilation using the two > different HALs (one of which is added in this patch). Please let me know > if there are problems or questions with this. Why do you need a "HAL" at all here? confused, greg k-h