[GIT PULL] mvl-dove branch sync'ed to Marvell Dove LSP 5.3.2

Brad Figg brad.figg at canonical.com
Mon Aug 2 21:17:13 UTC 2010

On 08/02/2010 10:15 AM, Tim Gardner wrote:
> On 08/02/2010 11:01 AM, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> On 08/02/2010 05:50 PM, Eric Miao wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Tim Gardner<tim.gardner at canonical.com>   wrote:
>>>> On 08/02/2010 09:05 AM, Eric Miao wrote:
>>>>> git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ycmiao/ubuntu-lucid.git mvl-dove
>>> The original LSP 5.3.2 branch for reference is at:
>>> http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=leali/ubuntu-lucid.git;a=summary
>>>> Did anyone notice that the patch 'Make some BT modules and ACL support for
>>>> File System as defautl in dove_defconfig' doesn't actually do anything?
>>> Grrr... the original change modified only dove_defconfig, and the change
>>> was actually merged in a previous commit syncing the dove_defconfig,
>>> leaving an almost empty commit after rebasing. We can safely remove
>>> this.
>>>> Nor does 'dove: fix SPI flash model and size found on db board'
>>> The original patch also does nothing except for changing the comment.
>>> Not really sure for its specific purpose, but simply merged here so to
>>> avoid possible merge conflict in the future.
>>>> So, what exactly are we supposed to do with this enormous pile of patches?
>>>> They certainly don't pass SRU qualifications.
>>> Hrm.... then I guess we need to figure out those we do need or
>>> are simply fixing patches, and leave out those irrelevant. Yet I'm
>>> afraid we'll be more and more difficult to merge further LSP syncs
>>> from Marvell?
>> Would this mean I should hold back with pulling anything?
> Not necessarily. I just wanted to confirm that we don't consider
> mvl-dove to be subject to SRU policies. As far as I know there has not
> been stable working HW, so I guess it makes sense that there would be
> some BSP updates. As soon as mvl-dove is used for a real project, then
> we'll have to change our opinion wrt SRU.
> rtg

Just to let everyone know, the pull is "in progress". As soon as we get
the current -proposed cleared out this will be targeted at the next one.
We'll get this into the Lucid tree soon.

Brad Figg brad.figg at canonical.com http://www.canonical.com

More information about the kernel-team mailing list