On Apr 21 2004, at 10:40, Jean Delvare was caught saying: > > The change stems from naming change in the ARM port to the IXP4xx. > > The original code had various variables, macros, and functions named > > ixp425_, ixp42x_, and ixp4xx_. All these were cleaned up to be > > ixp4xx instead since the port works on all CPUs in that family. > > I understood that. > > > W/O these changes, the I2C driver will not build (actually, it won't > > even appear as an options) once the ARM bits are pushed upstream. > > I had not realized that the changes to the i2c bus driver were not > independant from the other changes, sorry. I should have explained it in full detail in my original message. :) > > You can see the latst IXP4xx patch @ > > ftp://source.mvista.com/pub/ds-patches/patch-2.6.4-ds1.gz > > Well, that patch doesn't sound very informative to me. The i2c-ixp42x.c > driver is already in 2.6.5 so the relevant patch would be against > 2.6.5, not 2.6.4. True but the I2C-specific portion I posted here applies to 2.6.5. I'm working on getting a full 2.6.5 patch out the door the next few days (or 2.6-rc if we have one by then). > BTW, don't you intend to rename i2c-ixp42x.c to i2c-ixp4xx.c as well? Yep. The easiest way to do this with BK, is to 'bk move i2c-ixp42x i2c-ixp4xx' and than apply the patch on top to rename the references to ixp4xx in the "new" i2c-ixp4xx.c. ~Deepak -- Deepak Saxena - dsaxena at plexity dot net - http://www.plexity.net/ "Unlike me, many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment and will die here like rotten cabbages." - Number 6
