| Message ID | 4F991210.8060409@atmel.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:14:56 +0200 > Can you please pull those fixes for 3.4-rc? The ARM/AT91 part > of modifications is pretty small and bounded to a single SoC so > it will not mess with arm-soc git tree. Please post the patches themselves to netdev. You can give me pull requests, but those go into the "[PATCH 0/N] ..." email, it doesn't preclude you're still having to post the actual patches. Otherwise nobody can review your work.
On 04/26/2012 11:20 AM, David Miller : > From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:14:56 +0200 > >> Can you please pull those fixes for 3.4-rc? The ARM/AT91 part >> of modifications is pretty small and bounded to a single SoC so >> it will not mess with arm-soc git tree. > > Please post the patches themselves to netdev. > > You can give me pull requests, but those go into the "[PATCH 0/N] ..." > email, it doesn't preclude you're still having to post the actual > patches. > > Otherwise nobody can review your work. Both patches have been posted on netdev (but independently): First has been posted on February 13th: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg188868.html With a question from myself a few days ago: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg196183.html And I can find ancestors back in May 2011... Second one has been posted on April 23rd: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg196002.html So, should I repost both of them as patch series? Best regards,
From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:07:41 +0200 > So, should I repost both of them as patch series? Yes, with a leading "[PATCH 0/N] " posting as I asked.
On 04/26/2012 12:12 PM, David Miller : > From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:07:41 +0200 > >> So, should I repost both of them as patch series? > > Yes, with a leading "[PATCH 0/N] " posting as I asked. Ok, done! Thanks, bye,
Hi David, Can you please pull those fixes for 3.4-rc? The ARM/AT91 part of modifications is pretty small and bounded to a single SoC so it will not mess with arm-soc git tree. Tell me if you need other information on this signed tag... The following changes since commit 66f75a5d028beaf67c931435fdc3e7823125730c: Linux 3.4-rc4 (2012-04-21 14:47:52 -0700) are available in the git repository at: git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-3.4-net-fixes for you to fetch changes up to cfc991548b5b73c8038f41877da1cd0104945cf5: net/at91_ether: use gpio_to_irq for phy IRQ line (2012-04-26 10:22:40 +0200) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Both fixes are about at91_ether.c driver: It is only used in a single Atmel AT91 SoC: AT91RM9200. The removal of fixed mapping is a long standing refinement which will convert this driver to a more typical resources management. The gpio fix is needed now that we have moved AT91 to irqdomains. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Victor (1): AT91: Remove fixed mapping for AT91RM9200 ethernet Nicolas Ferre (1): net/at91_ether: use gpio_to_irq for phy IRQ line arch/arm/mach-at91/at91rm9200.c | 10 -- arch/arm/mach-at91/at91rm9200_devices.c | 4 +- arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/hardware.h | 1 - drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/at91_ether.c | 535 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------------- drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/at91_ether.h | 1 + 5 files changed, 291 insertions(+), 260 deletions(-) Best regards,