On Jun 12, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jun 12, 2009, at 4:23 AM, Li Yang wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Ira
Snyder<i...@ovro.caltech.edu> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 09:45:26PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Apr 27, 2009, at 3:49 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Timur Tabi <ti...@freescale.com>
wrote:
Adding Kumar to the CC: list, since he might pick up the patch.
Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com>
I agree with taking this through Kumar's tree.
I'm going through patches for .31.. Should I still pick this
up? Going
forward should I pick up fsldma patches?
I'm fine with that, but you should probably talk to Li Yang
(added to
CC). He's gotten in contact with me a few times recently.
I am fine with both ways for this patch as it is only related to
Freescale register details. But in general I think patches should
go
through functional subsystem, as they usually would need insight of
the subsystem architecture. I prefer the way that the patch acked
or
signed-off by Freescale guys and push upstream through Dan's tree as
most other subsystems did. Unless Dan prefers to ack the subsystem
architectural part of each patch and have them pushed other way.
I agree w/this and just wanting to see what Dan's preference is.
I'll take fsldma patches through the dmaengine tree with Leo's ack/
sign-off. That last request was a one-off because I had nothing
else to push and the discussion was very architecture specific.
Sounds good to me. I expect you to pick up this patch for .31
- k
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
