Russell, On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 08:52:17PM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 02:15:44AM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > > > > > > > > > TLLSAR is not functional till ES3.1 (and beyound). Is it possible to flag it this way? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it's easy in this case. Thanks for the note. I will send along an > > > > > updated patch for this. > > > > > > > > N.B. - fixxing this required a separate change to the omap_chip flag > > > > system, so I'll send the two necessary patches to the linux-omap mailing > > > > list for further testing. > > > > > > I'll hold off on this patch then. > > > > The patches that obsolete patch B 06 have lasted a week on linux-omap@vger > > without any comment, so am passing them along in subsequent E-mails. > > It seems that the patches don't obsolete this patch, but instead > require this patch to be applied first. The motivation was to make your life easier; otherwise several later patches would need to be updated and re-posted. > We really really need to get out of this pattern of building fixes > on top of bad patches. If a patch is the wrong approach then it is > the wrong approach and should be dropped, or it should be merged with > the patches which fix stuff up to the new approach. How would you like me to handle patch rewrites when they affect later patches in the series, as this one did? Shall I re-send updates of any later affected patches? - Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
