Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Jun 2010 18:22:01 -0700 | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Subject | Re: Pull request for nanoengine |
| |
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@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 ***
| |