Subject: Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs

From: Tom Rini <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:19:31 -0700

On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 07:30:38AM -0800, Michael Sokolov wrote:
>
> [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > This is the wrong approach. What we should do instead is have the gt eth
> > driver
> > do some kind of find_bi_rec(BI_GT64260_ETH_CFG). setup.c doesn't have to be
> > changed each time a new birec is added, and your approach seem wrong if
> > that driver ever becomes a module.
>
> Then push my patch defining the new bi_recs, and once it's in I'll make another
> one to implement what you just suggested. But if patches aren't being accepted
> there is no incentive for me to make or improve them.

Sure there is, for it to be accepted.  And would you please make it
versus the _galileo tree so that other users of GT-64260 can easily test
your changes?

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/