Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 06 Dec 2011 14:45:30 -0500 (EST) | From | Nicolas Pitre <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] ARM: kirkwood: Remove eSATA SheevaPlug board support |
| |
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, Tixy wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 13:00 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Tixy wrote: > > > [PATCH] Fix machine_is_xxx() naming for eSata SheevaPlug and QNAP TS-209 > > > > > > The eSata SheevaPlug and QNAP TS-209 devices were removed from > > > mach-types due to naming mismatches between machine_is_xxx(), CONFIG_XXX > > > and MACH_TYPE_XXX. > > > > > > This patch fixes those mismatches and adds the devices back into > > > mach-types. > > > > > > Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net> > > > Cc: Lennert Buytenhek <kernel@wantstofly.org> > > > Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> > > > Signed-off-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy@yxit.co.uk> > > > > Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org> > > > > Obviously, the change to mach-types should be done in the machine > > registry database as well by RMK. > > Which tree should this go through? Russell's or arm-soc?
The arm-soc tree is probably more appropriate. Don't include the mach-types changes though as it is preferable if they come through RMK's database updates.
Nicolas
| |