[PATCH 2/3] arm: return both physical and virtual addresses from addruart
dwalker at codeaurora.org
Mon Oct 18 18:44:14 EDT 2010
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 23:13 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 03:01:06PM -0700, 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.
> That's already been covered today with you. You're not listening.
> It can not be split up. It is one logical change. Splitting it up
> will break the build for everything until the entire patch is merged.
I said "if you can" I didn't say "break this patch up." I also said "in
the future" so I'm not talking about this patch anymore..
> > Secondly, you need to CC all the effected sub-architecture maintainers.
> > It's not acceptable to assume that everyone effected will magically
> > stumble onto this patch and know you modifying their sub-architecture ..
> Read the friggin subject line. linux-arm-kernel is where generic changes
> get discussed all the time. These changes will impact platform support.
> Sometimes that's not going to be obvious that it affects your platform.
> You need to be reading those changes. Look at the subject line of each
> mail and decide whether it's something that you need to look at.
That's not addressing the problem .. I don't actually care about this
change, all I care about is that it's changing files in my tree and I
need to keep aware of it so it doesn't cause problems down the line.
It's not about patch content.
I can't look at the subject line and know that this patches is modifying
files in my tree.
> In any case, it's not practical to copy a patch to 209 people - with
> some 8K of CC or To line.
Then don't CC 8k people, no one is saying you have to CC all 209. You
just have to CC the maintainers.
> Why aren't you using this time which I've given you to resolve your
I will send you a pull request by your deadline, even if I don't I
understand the consequences (which you have alerted me too).
Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel