Subject: Re: Microblaze merge

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 23:24:37 +1000

Hi Michal,

On Wed, 27 May 2009 15:06:23 +0200 Michal Simek <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> > 	posted to a relevant mailing list
> >   
> was
> > 	reviewed
> >   
> It was reviewed v1 - v2 contains all reported problems
> > 	unit tested
> >   
> I tested it
> > 	destined for the next merge window (or the current release)
> >   
> it is for next merge open window.

All good.

> I see the first problem that I should use {GIT PULL] prefix in subject.

Not for me.  Now that you have asked for inclusion, I will fetch the
tree/branch that you pointed me to every day until you tell me not to any
more.  So all you have to do is update that branch when your new stuff
meets the above criteria.

I usually don't expect any problems from the architecture trees since, as
you say, they are usually pretty much contained to their own arch/
directory.

One thing - is it easy for me to build a cross compiler for microblaze
(i.e. does some GNU release of gcc just work)?  If so, I could add some
microblaze configs to my automated builds.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    [email-masked]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/