> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-next-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-next-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Mundt > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:11 PM > To: Guan Xuetao > Cc: sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Arnd Bergmann'; gregkh@xxxxxxx; jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx; dtor@xxxxxxx; > rubini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-fbdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Request for unicore32 architecture codes to merge into linux-next > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 05:07:41PM +0800, Guan Xuetao wrote: > > IMO, the whole architecture specific codes need to be merged first, and only some > > necessary drivers are included under staging. Then, I could split the staging drivers > > into corresponding mail-list, and then, additional drivers. > > Otherwise, there are no architecture basic for drivers review. > > > That's of course fine so long as the driver changes are reasonably > self-contained. The situation we want to avoid is that you end up with > drivers that depend on some private infrastructure of API where not > enough context is provided when the two are decoupled. > > In any event, the architecture bits are the most self-contained and have > had the most review of anything in this series of patches, so it probably > makes sense to work on getting those bits integrated and then dealing > with the rest incrementally. Then, I should: 1. merge reviewed arch dir and reviewed drivers (for now, i8042) 2. submit staging drivers to review Am I right? Thanks. Guan Xuetao -- 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
