and number of new submitted patches is < 10 (I'll take
care of fixing them up, ditto for all other new stuff that will be using old
Thanks for clarifying this.
This rename only added more uncertainty for my pending patchset (which had been already dependant on at least TX4939 driver which keeps being recast by Atsushi and being stale in pata-2.6 series) as I can't predict when you and Linus will merge the changes and this is getting on my nerves, as I don't have time on any extra rework and I'm running out of time with the submission. I know I should have done this earlier and
Maybe some parts could be submitted separately?
(so keeping them up-to-date in pata-2.6 would be my task)
2 (maybe even 3) out of 4 can be but that doesn't make much sense already (and would incur the patch reordering for me) -- the best thing you can do is to merge ASAP the last verison of TX4939 which has my ACK.
I'm not sure about TX4938 driver yet -- will look at it after some sleep...
Also I didn't know anything about your patchset and its
dependency on TX4939, otherwise I'll be pushing things in
The patchset consists of a large patch moving read_sff_dma_status() to its porper place, one small preparatory patch, and 2 followup patches, so unfortunately it's dependent on TX4939 in its main patch (worse, the relevant part of this driver has changed after your last merged driver version)...
different order or even skip this pull request if needed
(TX493x drivers are new stuff and were still under review,
such things can be also submitted after the merge window
closes so they were given the lowest priority).
Unfortunately, that driver has been submitted first back 9/09, long before my patchset was even created, so the dependence was just natural.