lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Pull request for nanoengine
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 20:19:01 -0300
Marcelo Roberto Jimenez <mroberto@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?

Thanks.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-03 01:43    [W:0.034 / U:21.944 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site