* Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxx> [110706 22:26]: > On 7/6/2011 12:19 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > > >Patch 16, to me, belongs best with the 4460 support series and so I'll see > >if it makes sense to fit it in there somewhere. > > Paul, > > Do you want me to base the 4460 support series on one of your branches > and re-post including the above patch? Do we really need to do that patching right now to add base 4460 support? If we're just doing a bunch of renames all over the place to add support for a new processor variant, something is wrong. This is exactly the kind of "crazy churn" Linus was complaining about. In this case the crazy churn is "let's rename 4430 to 44XX all over the place". To me it's sane to assume that we can have most of 4430 features on 4460 and don't need to rename 4430 to 44XX for that. Adding 4460 should be just add few new 4460 defines, then do an arch_initcall to fixup things between 4430 and 4460. It would be nice to get the base 4460 support merged as the patches look ready to go otherwise. Rajendra, I suggest you take a quick look and see if you can leave out the dependency to the 4430 to 44XX rename patch to add minimal 4460 support. Then we can patch in the missing features later on, most likely we don't even need the arch_initcall fixup initially either. This would also leave out the dependency between the various patch series which will always lead into issues with merging code. Changes to the infrastructure issues like this should have been patched away early. The merge window is about to start and we're still waiting for the dependencies to get sorted out. Regards, Tony -- 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
