From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Rename get_property to of_get_property: drivers/net Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:43:48 -0700 Message-ID: <20070429004348.ea30f3fc.akpm@linux-foundation.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, jeff@garzik.org, paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([65.172.181.25]:55597 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755031AbXD2Hod (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 03:44:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070428.204754.62343452.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:47:54 -0700 (PDT) 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. This all started with me having a dummyspit over yet another huge reject because of intersections between subsystem trees. Normally we get away with it but when there's so much material pending, things deteriorate.