From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751177AbWGCEBh (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2006 00:01:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751178AbWGCEBh (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2006 00:01:37 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:48012 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751177AbWGCEBg (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2006 00:01:36 -0400 Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 21:00:34 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: linux-kernel@hansmi.ch, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, khali@linux-fr.org, linux-kernel@killerfox.forkbomb.ch, johannes@sipsolutions.net, stelian@popies.net, chainsaw@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Apple Motion Sensor driver Message-Id: <20060702210034.8abeb4d5.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <1151898448.19419.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060702222649.GA13411@hansmi.ch> <20060702201415.791c6eb2.akpm@osdl.org> <1151898448.19419.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.17; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:47:28 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 20:14 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 00:26:49 +0200 > > Michael Hanselmann wrote: > > > > > Below you find the latest revision of my AMS driver. > > > > I was about to merge the below, then this comes along. Now what? > > Michael's driver is a new version that adds support for non-i2c (PMU > based) chips found on new machines. It would be nice to have it, though > it definitely needs a bit of review from Stelian, the original author. > > What I would suggest at this point is to merge Stelian's original > driver, as you were about todo, then have Michael produce a patch > against it to be reviewed that could then be merged later on. I'm fine > having that "later on" still be in the 2.6.18 timeframe since we aren't > talking about anything critical here, just a fairly minor driver update > that is nice to have, but we can decide that later based on the reviews > of Michael's changes). Yes, but it wouldn't be a "patch against it" - Michael's patch adds multiple files with different names. So it would be a revert-and-redo.