On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grant Likely writes:
>
>> Please pull the 'merge' branch of my MPC5200 tree (url below). I've
>
> Pulled and pushed out, but I will wait until Linus is back from
> vacation before asking him to pull.
Thanks Paul.
> Some
Grant Likely writes:
> Please pull the 'merge' branch of my MPC5200 tree (url below). I've
Pulled and pushed out, but I will wait until Linus is back from
vacation before asking him to pull.
Some of the commits in there are very close to being unsuitable to go
in at this stage - in particular t
Hi Grant,
Grant Likely wrote:
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 5:13 AM, Bartlomiej Sieka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bartlomiej Sieka wrote:
Hi Grant,
Grant Likely wrote:
I'm thinking 'optimized' defconfigs should go into a subdirectory.
This requires a change to the top-level Makefile and shepherdin
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Josh Boyer > > I really like the
idea. It would probably make sense to organize it in
> > the same way as the platforms are done today, i.e. per processor/platform
> > family. And then have shared/merged configs in the main config directory.
>
> Yes. I was thin
On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 11:38 -0500, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 10:14:34AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > I'm thinking 'optimized' defconfigs should go into a subdirectory.
> > > > >
> > > > >
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 10:14:34AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > I'm thinking 'optimized' defconfigs should go into a subdirectory.
> > > >
> > > > This requires a change to the top-level Makefile and shepherding th
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I'm thinking 'optimized' defconfigs should go into a subdirectory.
> > >
> > > This requires a change to the top-level Makefile and shepherding this
> > > change upstream. Could we perhaps try to avoid this by havin
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 5:13 AM, Bartlomiej Sieka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bartlomiej Sieka wrote:
>
> > Hi Grant,
> >
> > Grant Likely wrote:
> > > I'm thinking 'optimized' defconfigs should go into a subdirectory.
> >
> > This requires a change to the top-level Makefile and shepherding this
Bartlomiej Sieka wrote:
Hi Grant,
Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Bartlomiej Sieka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Grant Likely wrote:
> The one part that I have a really strong opinion on is that there
> should be a full featured mpc5200 defconfig for build testing.
Beyon
Hi Grant,
Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Bartlomiej Sieka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Grant Likely wrote:
> The one part that I have a really strong opinion on is that there
> should be a full featured mpc5200 defconfig for build testing. Beyond
> that (and if ojn can
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Bartlomiej Sieka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
> > The one part that I have a really strong opinion on is that there
> > should be a full featured mpc5200 defconfig for build testing. Beyond
> > that (and if ojn can also be appeased) I can pr
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Bartlomiej Sieka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Richard Purdie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 08:47 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> I don't mind having a specific driver but I don't
Grant Likely wrote:
[...]
(copied from my comments in an off-list conversation)
However, I have declined (for now) to pick up the defconfigs for those
boards and instead merged in the config features they require into the
mpc5200 defconfig. My primary reason for doing so is to increase the
like
Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Richard Purdie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 08:47 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
I don't mind having a specific driver but I don't know anything about
the hardware its creating the interface for so I need the community's
h
Richard Purdie wrote:
On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 09:29 +0100, Bartlomiej Sieka wrote:
Grant Likely wrote:
The LED code just hasn't been picked up. IIRC, it was reworked to
make it a proper driver in drivers/leds.
Yes, the Motion-PRO LED driver has been reworked and posted:
http://patchwork.ozlabs
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Richard Purdie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 08:47 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> I don't mind having a specific driver but I don't know anything about
> the hardware its creating the interface for so I need the community's
> help with that
On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 08:47 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Bartlomiej Sieka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Grant,
> >
> > Yes, the Motion-PRO LED driver has been reworked and posted:
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?q=Motion-pro&id=16617
>
> Okay, I'
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Bartlomiej Sieka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grant,
>
> Yes, the Motion-PRO LED driver has been reworked and posted:
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?q=Motion-pro&id=16617
>
>
>
> > I need to look at it again,
> > but it is a lot of code for a ver
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:42:14 -0600
"Grant Likely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dear Grant,
> >
> >
> > in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > >
> > > However, I have declined (for now) to pick up the defconfigs
On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 09:29 +0100, Bartlomiej Sieka wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
> > The LED code just hasn't been picked up. IIRC, it was reworked to
> > make it a proper driver in drivers/leds.
>
> Yes, the Motion-PRO LED driver has been reworked and posted:
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxp
Grant Likely wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
It may be argued that this code should be moved somewhere else, but I
don't remeber to have seen any such review comments.
The LED code just hasn't been picked up. IIRC, it was reworked to
m
Grant Likely wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Bartlomiej Sieka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
we were hoping that the changes would go upstream (in 2.6.25). I can see
that the .dts files for those boards are in the mainline already, but I
see no trace of for example _defconfig files
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Grant,
>
>
> in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> >
> > However, I have declined (for now) to pick up the defconfigs for those
> > boards and instead merged in the config features they require into the
> >
Dear Grant,
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> However, I have declined (for now) to pick up the defconfigs for those
> boards and instead merged in the config features they require into the
> mpc5200 defconfig. My primary reason for doing so is to increase the
> likelyhood that full
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> * The TQM5200 configuration as provided is intended for shipping as
> default configuration for this board. The "engineer responsible"
> already *did* the tailoring an
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> b) defconfigs is more about testing and a known working configuration
> than it is about a distribution configuration. It's not intended to
> be the deployed config. For a distribution/deployable image it is
> expected that the engineer responsible wi
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> >
> > > What is the status of the various MPC5200-related patches (support for
> > > TQM5200, CM5200 and Motion-PRO boards, few drivers, etc) posted some
> > > time ago by
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> > What is the status of the various MPC5200-related patches (support for
> > TQM5200, CM5200 and Motion-PRO boards, few drivers, etc) posted some
> > time ago by Marian Balakowicz? There's been some comments to the patches
> > on the list, which wer
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Bartlomiej Sieka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
> > Paul, here is a bug fix that needs to go in for 2.6.25.
>
> Hi Grant,
>
> What is the status of the various MPC5200-related patches (support for
> TQM5200, CM5200 and Motion-PRO boards, few dr
On 10/17/07, Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grant Likely writes:
>
> > There are remaining outstanding comments; but my opinion is that they
> > should be addressed in subsequent patches (performance optimization
> > for mp5200b boards and making the sram management code a generic
> >
Grant Likely writes:
> There are remaining outstanding comments; but my opinion is that they
> should be addressed in subsequent patches (performance optimization
> for mp5200b boards and making the sram management code a generic
> interface usable by other SoC support code).
>
> If you agree; pl
> Paulus,
>
> Sylvain has asked if I would like to help with the mpc52xx
> maintainership. If it's okay by you, here is a patch that adds me as
> co-maintainer for the mpc52xx platform along with 3 other mpc52xx
> related fixes.
>
> Sylvain, can you please reply to this message confirming that thi
32 matches
Mail list logo
