Pull request for nanoengine

[Randy Dunlap]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 16:38:44 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 20:19:01 -0300
> Marcelo Roberto Jimenez <mroberto at cetuc.puc-rio.br> wrote:
> 
> > The following is a compilation of all the patches I have done for the
> > nanoengine. Some of these are also valid for SA11xx based machines
> > like, e.g, sharp Zaurus.
> 
> Which other kernel developer were you hoping would merge this tree?
> 
> >  arch/arm/configs/nanoengine_defconfig          | 1396 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  arch/arm/mach-sa1100/Kconfig                   |    8 +
> >  arch/arm/mach-sa1100/Makefile                  |    2 +
> >  arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1100.c              |   56 +-
> >  arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1110.c              |   51 +-
> >  arch/arm/mach-sa1100/include/mach/nanoengine.h |   30 +
> >  arch/arm/mach-sa1100/nanoengine.c              |  115 ++
> >  drivers/pcmcia/Makefile                        |    3 +-
> >  drivers/pcmcia/sa1100_generic.c                |    3 +
> >  drivers/pcmcia/sa1100_generic.h                |    1 +
> >  drivers/pcmcia/sa1100_nanoengine.c             |  219 ++++
> >  drivers/pcmcia/soc_common.c                    |  129 ++-
> >  drivers/rtc/rtc-sa1100.c                       |  153 ++-
> 
> I can only think it must have been Russell.
> 
> I've rather lost track of what's happening with ARM subtrees.  I
> _think_ it's now the case the relevant maintainers are putting their
> trees into linux-next directly and are asking Linus to pull them
> directly.  But maybe that's a misconception.
> 
> Can someone please explain the current state of play?


Check this from about 2 hours before your question:
  http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/2/472  (Linus)


---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***