Re: Pull request for nanoengine
From: Randy Dunlap
Date: Wed Jun 02 2010 - 21:24:27 EST
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 ***
--
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/