On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 19:26 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 08:38:16AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 16:39 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > >
> > > Someone brought up the fact that the EMAC rewrite is mostly just
> > > changing probing code and the g
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 08:38:16AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 16:39 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> > Someone brought up the fact that the EMAC rewrite is mostly just
> > changing probing code and the guts are still similar to the current
> > EMAC driver. I haven'
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 16:39 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> Someone brought up the fact that the EMAC rewrite is mostly just
> changing probing code and the guts are still similar to the current
> EMAC driver. I haven't really looked into it yet, but if that's true,
> I'd be curious as to why it was
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 20:57:26 + (UTC)
Hollis Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:15:47 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > For those interested, here's my current 4xx patch series. There are a few
> > cleanups as a pre-requisite for 40x support, some minimal Walnut support
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:15:47 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> For those interested, here's my current 4xx patch series. There are a few
> cleanups as a pre-requisite for 40x support, some minimal Walnut support, and
> another round of Bamboo patches. These are all based off of Paul's current
> tree.
For those interested, here's my current 4xx patch series. There are a few
cleanups as a pre-requisite for 40x support, some minimal Walnut support, and
another round of Bamboo patches. These are all based off of Paul's current
tree.
Patches 1 through 7 are likely ready to be merged if there are
