On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 01:00:31AM +0800, Guan Xuetao wrote: > drivers/staging/puv3/Kconfig | 125 ++ > drivers/staging/puv3/Makefile | 22 + > drivers/staging/puv3/TODO | 7 + > drivers/staging/puv3/i8042-ucio.h | 89 ++ > drivers/staging/puv3/puv3-atkbd.h | 43 + > drivers/staging/puv3/puv3_ac97.c | 369 +++++ > drivers/staging/puv3/puv3_i2c.c | 309 ++++ > drivers/staging/puv3/puv3_pcm.c | 435 ++++++ > drivers/staging/puv3/puv3_pcm.h | 28 + > drivers/staging/puv3/puv3_umal.c | 2069 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/staging/puv3/puv3_unifb.c | 965 ++++++++++++ Staging is not a shortcut around having things reviewed or broken out logically. It's of course fine to merge the bulk of things in one go for when a new architecture is going on, but logically disparate parts still need to be broken out and sent to the proper places for review. It's obvious you haven't done this for any of the non-arch bits and hiding things under staging is not going to make this step any less necessary. If you want your framebuffer driver reviewed, then split it out and submit it to the linux-fbdev list for review. Once that's had a going over and been Acked then of course it can be merged through whatever tree you like, and there's even a good chance that you don't need to bother with staging at all. Using staging as a review circumvention measure however is just not going to fly. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
