On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:23:41 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kumar,
>>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:07:47 -0500 Kumar Gala
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I'm confused
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:23:41 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Kumar,
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:07:47 -0500 Kumar Gala
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm confused by the proposed fix as we already have *mdio & *ph
>> > defined in th
On Jun 17, 2009, at 8:34 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:23:41 +1000 Stephen Rothwell > wrote:
Hi Kumar,
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:07:47 -0500 Kumar Gala > wrote:
I'm confused by the proposed fix as we already have *mdio & *ph
defined in this function:
Which tree are you
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:23:41 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Hi Kumar,
>
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:07:47 -0500 Kumar Gala
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm confused by the proposed fix as we already have *mdio & *ph
> > defined in this function:
>
> Which tree are you looking at? Linus' tree, and
Hi Kumar,
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:07:47 -0500 Kumar Gala wrote:
>
>
> I'm confused by the proposed fix as we already have *mdio & *ph
> defined in this function:
Which tree are you looking at? Linus' tree, and linux-next, do not have
those local variables ...
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Jun 17, 2009, at 7:51 AM, Subrata Modak wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 12:22 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
Hi Li/Nathan,
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 09:07 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
Hi Nathan,
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 21:28 -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
Subrata Modak writes:
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 1
Hi Li/Nathan,
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 09:07 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> Hi Nathan,
>
> >On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 21:28 -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> >Subrata Modak writes:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 11:05 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >> Hi Subrata,
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:
