On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 08:53:11AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Anton Vorontsov > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Can you repost a fixed version with my Ack and Cc: Andrew Morton, > > Benjamin Herrenschmidt? > > > > I think this change should go into the 2.6.28, so that we can > > write new code on top of new API. Otherwise this change will cause > > issues in the next merge window. > > While I like this series, it should not be pushed for .28. The window > is closed and we are in bug-fix-only mode.
IIRC, we approve API changes in the early -rcs, exactly to avoid build break issues for the new code (though the API changes themselves are discouraged). > Focus on getting it into Ben's -next tree instead. Would Benjamin apply the USB FHCI driver then? I doubt it. So, there are options: 1. Either this patch go in into the .28; 2. Or this patch go in _after_ USB FHCI driver, and Trent takes care to convert it to the new API. (I'm trying to push the driver since 2007, I think. Firstly it has GPIO framework dependency, QE GPIO, QE Pinmux, FSL GTM dependency, bindings, e.t.c. And now that. No, no deal. I quite tired of the dependencies for this driver.) 3. Or we apply my original patch that won't break the API. http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/25/236 I still like it better than Trent's patch, exactly because it can't break anything. > That will deal with any merge window > conflicts. This won't deal with build breakage because of API changes, which means I can't submit FHCI driver to Greg, I have to wait for the API changes applied. Thanks, -- Anton Vorontsov email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
