On Monday 11 March 2013, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> > I don't have a strong opinion here, so that would be fine with me.
> > Greg, Arnd, would mei_cl_device and mei_cl_driver be an acceptable
> > compromise?
> I'm re-opening this topic now that the merge window is closed: So would you
> guys take
Hi Greg, Arnd,
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:57:31AM +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 03:32:44PM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Samuel Ortiz
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:09:00PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On
Hi Greg, Arnd,
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:57:31AM +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 03:32:44PM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Samuel Ortiz sa...@linux.intel.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:09:00PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On
On Monday 11 March 2013, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion here, so that would be fine with me.
Greg, Arnd, would mei_cl_device and mei_cl_driver be an acceptable
compromise?
I'm re-opening this topic now that the merge window is closed: So would you
guys take
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 03:32:44PM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:09:00PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 12 February 2013, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Please let's
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 03:32:44PM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Samuel Ortiz sa...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:09:00PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 12 February 2013, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Please let's
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:09:00PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 12 February 2013, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Please let's find something that makes both hw and Linux happy
> > > > I still believe it
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Samuel Ortiz sa...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:09:00PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 12 February 2013, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Please let's find something that makes both hw and Linux happy
I still believe
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:09:00PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 February 2013, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please let's find something that makes both hw and Linux happy
> > > I still believe it makes sense to use mei_device for what we add to the
> > > MEI
> >
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:09:00PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 12 February 2013, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Please let's find something that makes both hw and Linux happy
I still believe it makes sense to use mei_device for what we add to the
MEI
bus. I'd be
On Tuesday 12 February 2013, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> >
> > > Please let's find something that makes both hw and Linux happy
> > I still believe it makes sense to use mei_device for what we add to the MEI
> > bus. I'd be fine with mei_bus_device as well, but that would somehow look
> >
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> Hi Tomas,
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:17:21PM +, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> >
> >
> > > In preparation for the MEI bus code merge, we rename the mei_device
> > > structure to mei_host.
> > > struct mei_device will be used for
Hi Tomas,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:17:21PM +, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
>
>
> > In preparation for the MEI bus code merge, we rename the mei_device
> > structure to mei_host.
> > struct mei_device will be used for devices on the MEI bus in order to follow
> > exisiting driver model
> In preparation for the MEI bus code merge, we rename the mei_device
> structure to mei_host.
> struct mei_device will be used for devices on the MEI bus in order to follow
> exisiting driver model implementations practices.
>
I'd like to NACK this name, we use 'host' for the host part of the
In preparation for the MEI bus code merge, we rename the mei_device
structure to mei_host.
struct mei_device will be used for devices on the MEI bus in order to follow
exisiting driver model implementations practices.
Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz
---
drivers/misc/mei/amthif.c| 30
In preparation for the MEI bus code merge, we rename the mei_device
structure to mei_host.
struct mei_device will be used for devices on the MEI bus in order to follow
exisiting driver model implementations practices.
Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz sa...@linux.intel.com
---
In preparation for the MEI bus code merge, we rename the mei_device
structure to mei_host.
struct mei_device will be used for devices on the MEI bus in order to follow
exisiting driver model implementations practices.
I'd like to NACK this name, we use 'host' for the host part of the MEI
Hi Tomas,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:17:21PM +, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
In preparation for the MEI bus code merge, we rename the mei_device
structure to mei_host.
struct mei_device will be used for devices on the MEI bus in order to follow
exisiting driver model implementations
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:29:35PM +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
Hi Tomas,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:17:21PM +, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
In preparation for the MEI bus code merge, we rename the mei_device
structure to mei_host.
struct mei_device will be used for devices on the
On Tuesday 12 February 2013, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Please let's find something that makes both hw and Linux happy
I still believe it makes sense to use mei_device for what we add to the MEI
bus. I'd be fine with mei_bus_device as well, but that would somehow look
a bit
20 matches
Mail list logo
