Re: [PATCH REPOST 0/5] convert arm platforms to smsc911x

[Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>]

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 <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> 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?