On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 10:46 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>>
>> It shouldn't need any fixing because I'm not touching the driver side
>> of the equation (unlike the last breakage where macio_driver had its
>> own copy of the match table
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 10:46 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>
> It shouldn't need any fixing because I'm not touching the driver side
> of the equation (unlike the last breakage where macio_driver had its
> own copy of the match table which I missed). In fact, there aren't
> even any logic changes oth
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 15:13 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>> This series is based on Linus' current tree. It eliminate struct
>> of_device in preparation for the merge of of_platform_bus_type and
>> platform_bus_type.
>>
>> Assuming t
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 15:13 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> This series is based on Linus' current tree. It eliminate struct
> of_device in preparation for the merge of of_platform_bus_type and
> platform_bus_type.
>
> Assuming there are no objections, I'll be putting these to linux-next
> to stew s
