On 11/18/2013 09:35 AM, David Cohen wrote: > On 11/18/2013 07:28 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 04:09:18PM -0800, David Cohen wrote: >>> This patch adds a test module to validate sfi_device() when used from a >>> driver module. >> >> I don't think this is all that useful. How about you prepeare a few >> of the more useful drivers from your tree for submission instead? > > One of these drivers you can track here: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/3109791/ > This is necessary to enable serial console on Saltbay (Merrifield based > platform). But the driver is still being reworked to be upstreamed. > > Anyway, upstream those drivers won't work to validate this patch set > we're discussion here. All platform codes are bool (can't be module).
I meant: all upstreamed platform codes are bool. > The real purpose of these patches is to make my internal tree to be > equal to upstream. My intention is to upstream *all* internal patches > of Intel MID and temporarily move away from arch/x86/platform/intel- > mid/device_libs/ the platform code from still-on-staging-state drivers. > > So, we need a dummy module on upstream to make this code testable. > > In case this code is not accepted, I'll will have to maintain 2 > official public branches: one with these patches and one without them. > > Br, David > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
