[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the v4l-dvb tree
    Em 04-03-2011 18:23, Greg KH escreveu:
    > On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 02:54:24PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
    >> Hi Greg,
    >> Em 04-03-2011 14:13, Greg KH escreveu:
    >>> On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 04:39:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
    >>>> Hi Greg,
    >>>> Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in
    >>>> drivers/staging/Kconfig between commit
    >>>> a1256092a1e87511c977a3d0ef96151cda77e5c9 ("[media] Altera FPGA firmware
    >>>> download module") from the v4l-dvb tree and commit
    >>>> 0867b42113ec4eb8646eb361b15cbcfb741ddf5b ("staging: gma500: Intel GMA500
    >>>> staging driver") from the staging tree.
    >>>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
    >>> That looks correct.
    >>> Mauro, what is this driver and why is it added to the staging tree?
    >> This driver implements the FPGA programming logic for a firmware required
    >> by a DVB driver, and was proposed initially for 2.6.37 inclusion. During the
    >> 2.6.38 development cycle, it suffered several revisions, based on our input
    >> at the media and lkml mailing lists, where Igor fixed all CodingStyle issues.
    >> In the last minute, during 2.6.38 merge window, two developers (Laurent and Ben)
    >> [1] complained against adding a driver for loading FPGA firmware as-is. So, I
    >> decided to add it, for now, at staging, to avoid needing to postpone a long series
    >> of patches again just because of that, especially since a series of DVB-C devices
    >> are without support on Linux without this patch series, and there are very few
    >> DVB-C devices currently supported.
    >> The Altera driver is compliant with CodingStyle, and, from my side, it is ok
    >> to move it to drivers/others, but it doesn't hurt to give some time for Ben and
    >> Laurent to propose alternative way of implementing the firmware request logic.
    >> If nothing happens until 2.6.40 merge window, I think we should go forward and
    >> move it to the proper place.
    > Ok, thanks, I'll defer any patches for this code to you.

    Ok, thanks!

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-03-06 11:19    [W:4.026 / U:1.172 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site