-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Wolfgang,
Wolfgang Grandegger schrieb: > Sebastian Haas wrote: >> Wolfgang, >> >> Wolfgang Grandegger schrieb: >>> Sebastian Haas wrote: >>>> Oliver Hartkopp schrieb: >>>>> Looks the described process sane to all of you? >>>> Let summarize: >>>> Work on already mainlined drivers or new drivers is done on net-next-2.6. >>>> Not yet >>>> mainlined drivers becomes ready for mainlining in the out-of-tree >>>> repository which >>>> we move to GIT. >>> In principle yes, but it's not a real requirement that the driver must >>> first be for the SVN trunk. Patches directly for net-next-2.6 are >>> accepted as well, of course, if they are OK. See the ti_hecc driver >>> posted recently. When it gets accepted, it's not a big deal to adapt it >>> for the out-of-tree SVN code. >> Who does this adaption? > > The minimal code adaption is just: > > s+linux/can+socketcan/can+ > > plus some extra lines for the build environment (Makefile). Depending of > the kernel versions supported, there might be more, like using the > ND2D() macro, handling netdev stats, etc. At the moment net-next-2.6 holds stable and mainlined drivers, while SVN holds _all_ mainlined and non-mainlained drivers. When we begin to work against net-next-2.6 for new drivers and hope someone will port them back to SVN, these two trees will drift away. >>>> There is another option (just a thought worth). The staging-tree is >>>> indented for >>>> drivers which are not yet ready for kernel inclusion. This criteria >>>> matches for all >>>> currently not yet mainlined drivers. Why not moving them to the staging >>>> tree so >>>> we have all drivers in net-next-2.6? This would also increase the audience >>>> of kernel >>>> developers which may take look at this drivers to help us, getting them >>>> out of staging? >>> Honestly, it's a *waste* time and I also do not want that pre-mature and >>> buggy drivers enter the mainline kernel. I'm really surprised that it's >>> possible at all. >> It's just your opinion. I don't want to start an ideology debate about >> pro and cons of the staging driver. It's just an option. > > That's my personal opinion, of course. Everyone knows, the staging tree holds crap. Why not push our crap to staging as well? Then we have only one repository/source where the Socket CAN drivers for 2.6 are. The SVN repository will still be used for example applications and the 2.4 tree, and maybe for patches to get a specific driver to work for 2.6.22. Cheers, Sebastian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkqvqvAACgkQpqRB8PJG7XwZjACfaIcIk44iR4OwVFgg6Ef1ihrq 22wAn2F2jiZAEVRBJ87tksVil13P0aYY =I1K/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- EMS Dr. Thomas Wuensche e.K. Sonnenhang 3 85304 Ilmmuenster HRA Neuburg a.d. Donau, HR-Nr. 70.106 Phone: +49-8441-490260 Fax : +49-8441-81860 http://www.ems-wuensche.com _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
