From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH REPOST 0/5] convert arm platforms to smsc911x Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:12:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20090119.141240.108087992.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20090119.131517.149029812.davem@davemloft.net> <20090119213159.GJ18301@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Steve.Glendinning@smsc.com, ian.saturley@smsc.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, netdev@vger.kernel.org, stanley.miao@windriver.com To: linux@arm.linux.org.uk Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:42591 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752623AbZASWMj (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:12:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090119213159.GJ18301@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Russell King - ARM Linux Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:31:59 +0000 > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 01:15:17PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > > From: Steve.Glendinning@smsc.com > > Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:53:54 +0000 > > > > > Russell King - ARM Linux wrote on 19/01/2009 > > > 09:22:57: > > > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 04:04:34PM +0800, stanley.miao wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 21:53 -0800, David Miller wrote: > > > > > > I've applied patches 1 and 2, the smsc911x driver changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can pull the platform changes into net-next-2.6 as well > > > > > > if people don't think there will enough conflicts to cause > > > > > > problems. > > > > > > > > > > I think the platform data had better stay in arm tree. > > > > > > > > What would be the impact if patches 3 to 5 got merged before 1 and 2? > > > > > > It would not break compilation, but it would probably break ethernet > > > support > > > on those three platforms. > > > > That's why I suggested they go where the dependency is for > > proper functionality. > > Ok, as I see it, the files with the highest chance of conflicting > in this set are the defconfig files. > > Therefore, may I suggest that the defconfig updates are split from 3-5 > and sent via my tree, the remainder via davem's net-next-2.6 tree? That works for me.