RE: Request for unicore32 architecture codes to merge into linux-next

[Guan Xuetao]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-next-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-next-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Mundt
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:11 PM
> To: Guan Xuetao
> Cc: sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Arnd Bergmann'; gregkh@xxxxxxx; jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx; dtor@xxxxxxx;
> rubini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-fbdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Request for unicore32 architecture codes to merge into linux-next
> 
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 05:07:41PM +0800, Guan Xuetao wrote:
> > IMO, the whole architecture specific codes need to be merged first, and only some
> > necessary drivers are included under staging. Then, I could split the staging drivers
> > into corresponding mail-list, and then, additional drivers.
> > Otherwise, there are no architecture basic for drivers review.
> >
> That's of course fine so long as the driver changes are reasonably
> self-contained. The situation we want to avoid is that you end up with
> drivers that depend on some private infrastructure of API where not
> enough context is provided when the two are decoupled.
> 
> In any event, the architecture bits are the most self-contained and have
> had the most review of anything in this series of patches, so it probably
> makes sense to work on getting those bits integrated and then dealing
> with the rest incrementally.
Then, I should:
1. merge reviewed arch dir and reviewed drivers (for now, i8042)
2. submit staging drivers to review
Am I right?

Thanks.
Guan Xuetao

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/