From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/9] macb: unify at91 and avr32 platform data Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:41:18 +0000 Message-ID: <20110318154118.GQ29758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1300184096-13937-1-git-send-email-jamie@jamieiles.com> <1300184096-13937-4-git-send-email-jamie@jamieiles.com> <87vczkmy94.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <871v26m8tf.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <20110317085835.GC29758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <87wrjyksnm.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> <20110317093403.GA15396@pulham.picochip.com> <20110317215101.GC2927@pulham.picochip.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Peter Korsgaard , "avictor.za@gmail.com" , plagnioj@jcrosoft.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, nicolas.ferre@atmel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jamie Iles Return-path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:51720 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756616Ab1CRPlr (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:41:47 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110317215101.GC2927@pulham.picochip.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 09:51:01PM +0000, Jamie Iles wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 09:34:03AM +0000, Jamie Iles wrote: > > Ok, I'll rename to macb_platform_data and update at91_ether to use > > that with a comment describing that we're sharing the platform data > > with macb. At least that gets rid of the preprocessor stuff in > > board.h for at91 too. > > So here's the updated patch with changes to the at91_ether driver to > share the data with macb. > > Russell, are you happy to take this series? If so, how would you prefer > it, in the patch system or as a git pull? As Nicolas Ferre is listed in MAINTAINERS as being responsible for the MACB driver, I think he should at last Ack these patches first. I'm also concious of the fact that Linus complains if my tree contains changes for drivers/ stuff as well as ARM stuff, so I'm nervous about taking it as-is. So, I'd rather see drivers stuff separated as much as possible from the arch updates. I'm also concious that this has become ready for potentially merging during the merge window, and therefore hasn't had previous exposure in linux-next, and so should wait until the next merge window. I do feel that I'm going to be yelled at for saying that... but I'm sure I'll also be yelled at if I did take it.