On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 06:23:01PM -0700, andrew may wrote: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 04:05:48PM -0700, Matt Porter wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 02:16:01PM -0700, andrew may wrote: > > > > > > It looks like this question was lasted asked around Jan/Feb, but > > > I have not seen an update on the status recently. > > > > > > I have looked at the i2c-2.6.3 and I am reluctant to spend any > > > time working on it since it needs to go through some formating > > > changes to get rid of the C++ style comments. I don't want to > > > deal with a merge issues of doing a style change unless I know > > > it will go in. > > > > I pushed a modified version of Armin's latest updated patch in. > > I'd love to see the C-- comments go away but I'm too lazy to play > > with it beyond testing it on my platform. If anybody sends patches > > that clean up some more of the ugliness then I'll push them in. > > I have just started to use BK and this does provide an interesting > test. I had started to merge the stuff in steps before you did your > push. So here are some bk export's -tpatch of what I tried. I go > lazy on the merge of the last Makefile and I thing I screwed it up. > > i2c-2.6.3.patch is a patch to bring this up to the i2c 2.6.3 level. > i2c-2.6.3-405.patch adds the 405 files in 2.6.3 > i2c-2.6.3-armin.patch is Armin's patch without the file rename. > i2c-merge1 & 2 should be just file mv's but I didn't do it too > well.
It's not a good idea to merge the i2c-2.6.3 support into 2_4_devel. The idea here is to make available a 4xx IIC driver that can be used with the current i2c infrastructure in the 2.4 kernel and can be changed in sync with any ocp changes that are made. Regards, -- Matt Porter MontaVista Software, Inc. mporter at mvista.com ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
