[PATCH 2/3] arm: return both physical and virtual addresses from addruart
nico at fluxnic.net
Mon Oct 18 18:30:19 EDT 2010
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 09:07 +0800, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> > ---
> > arch/arm/kernel/debug.S | 22 +-
> > arch/arm/mach-aaec2000/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 10
> > arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 8
> > arch/arm/mach-clps711x/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 12 -
> > arch/arm/mach-cns3xxx/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 10
> > arch/arm/mach-davinci/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 46 ++--
> > arch/arm/mach-dove/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 11 -
> > arch/arm/mach-ebsa110/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 7
> > arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 11 -
> > arch/arm/mach-footbridge/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 22 --
> > arch/arm/mach-gemini/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 8
> > arch/arm/mach-h720x/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 10
> > arch/arm/mach-integrator/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 10
> > arch/arm/mach-iop13xx/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 16 -
> > arch/arm/mach-iop32x/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 7
> > arch/arm/mach-iop33x/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 12 -
> > arch/arm/mach-ixp2000/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 14 -
> > arch/arm/mach-ixp23xx/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 11 -
> > arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 16 -
> > arch/arm/mach-kirkwood/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 11 -
> > arch/arm/mach-ks8695/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 8
> > arch/arm/mach-l7200/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 38 +++
> > arch/arm/mach-lh7a40x/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 10
> > arch/arm/mach-loki/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 11 -
> > arch/arm/mach-mmp/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 11 -
> > arch/arm/mach-msm/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 10
> Firstly, you should try to break this kind of patch up if you can.
It was split as much as possible already.
> Secondly, you need to CC all the effected sub-architecture maintainers.
There are 367 different machines affected. Please get real. Sorry but
you are not more special than the others. The MSM is only one of the
many subarchitectures that the core ARM code serves.
> It's not acceptable to assume that everyone effected will magically
> stumble onto this patch and know you modifying their sub-architecture ..
This is precisely why RMK asked for those patches to be merged at the
end of his merge cycle. Bypassing RMK for your own merge requests is
only going to cause you similar trouble in the future.
> Please do those things with future patches.
I'm sorry Daniel, but you are not in a position to lecture people with
such language in this case. You were told repeatedly so far about what
you should do right now. Everyone involved did their best except you at
More information about the linux-arm-kernel