On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:05:58 +0200
Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 August 2007, David Gibson wrote:
> >
> > > > > The point would be to keep the two trees separate, so that one
> > > > > doesn't need to worry about breaking arch/ppc when making a change
> > > > > to arch/
On Tuesday 21 August 2007, David Gibson wrote:
>
> > > > The point would be to keep the two trees separate, so that one
> > > > doesn't need to worry about breaking arch/ppc when making a change
> > > > to arch/powerpc.
> > >
> > > Exactly so. Having to be careful about not breaking arch/ppc whe
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:47:07 +1000
David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 10:44:31AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:32:43 -0500
> > > Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>Do we want to go and move stuff back out of arch
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 09:47:30PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:47:07 +1000
> David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 10:44:31AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:32:43 -0500
> > > > Kumar Gala <[EMAIL
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 10:44:31AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:32:43 -0500
> > Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Do we want to go and move stuff back out of arch/powerpc/kernel back
> >>into arch/ppc/kernel? or just include files?
> >
> >
> >
'gt;> What would be the point of doing that? I would think we want the
>> opposite, in that we want to reuse as much of arch/powerpc during
>> arch/ppc compiles as possible. Sort of shows how much is "left" to
>> port.
>
> The point would be to keep the two trees separate, so that one doesn't
> n
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:44:31 -0500
Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:32:43 -0500
> > Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Do we want to go and move stuff back out of arch/powerpc/kernel back
> >>into arch/ppc/kernel? or just include files?
Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:32:43 -0500
> Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Do we want to go and move stuff back out of arch/powerpc/kernel back
>>into arch/ppc/kernel? or just include files?
>
>
> What would be the point of doing that? I would think we want the
> opposit
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:32:43 -0500
Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:00 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 12:05:36PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >> This patch series removes the need for include/asm-ppc in the
> >> ARCH=powerpc
> >> build for pp
On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:00 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 12:05:36PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> This patch series removes the need for include/asm-ppc in the
>> ARCH=powerpc
>> build for ppc32. They exist in the following git tree:
>>
>> master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/ker
On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 12:05:36PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> This patch series removes the need for include/asm-ppc in the ARCH=powerpc
> build for ppc32. They exist in the following git tree:
>
> master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/powerpc.git for-2.6.24
>
> posting here for ev
This patch series removes the need for include/asm-ppc in the ARCH=powerpc
build for ppc32. They exist in the following git tree:
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/powerpc.git for-2.6.24
posting here for everyone else to see.
Updated with changes suggested by Arnd & Segher. (r
12 matches
Mail list logo
