On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:14:26 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
> What is the review status of this series, should I post it again?
No please! /o\
I'll go through your numerous past posts now, stay tuned.
--
Jean Delvare
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-de
What is the review status of this series, should I post it again?
On 12/19/07, Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since copying i2c-mpc.c to maintain support for the ppc architecture seems to
> be an issue; instead rework i2c-mpc.c to use CONFIG_PPC_MERGE #ifdefs to
> support both the ppc an
Hi John,
Le 27/12/2007, Jon Smirl écrit:
>On 12/19/07, Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Another rework of the i2c for powerpc device tree patch. This version
>> implements standard alias naming only on the powerpc platform and only for
>> the device tree names. The old naming mechanism o
On 12/19/07, Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another rework of the i2c for powerpc device tree patch. This version
> implements standard alias naming only on the powerpc platform and only for
> the device tree names. The old naming mechanism of
> i2c_client.name,driver_name is left in pla
Are there any other objections to this patch? If not, can it be
targeted for 2.6.25?
On 12/19/07, Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since copying i2c-mpc.c to maintain support for the ppc architecture seems to
> be an issue; instead rework i2c-mpc.c to use CONFIG_PPC_MERGE #ifdefs to
> supp
