In message 06cc01c3db51$e2f496e0$6d4ba8c0@alb.sub.de you wrote:
Added (as rtc/5xxx.c).
Actually it's rtc/mpc5xxx
I do not understand the logic behind this filename. Are all 5xxx having this type of RTC? MGT5100 ? MPC5200 ? MCF5xxx (Coldfire) ??? MPC5500-Series ?
At least MGT5100 and MPC5200.
I was mostly following the agreed-on naming conventions of the Linux kernel, where most files were named mpc5xxx...
So at least a filename like mpc5xxx.c would be better... Currently it
Actually this is what I used.
OTOH in Linux there is arch/ppc/5xxx_io, too ;-)
supports only the MPC5200 and nothing else
MGT5100?
- these instructions were meant for Victor Wren, who had asked for MPC5200
RTC support
You sent it to the public mailing list. It was 5 minutes of extra work to prepare a proper patch.
I _had_ to complain because ther eis some tendency to drop arbitray source files to the list with just laconic comments "this is what I am using - feel free to try it - it's sink or swim."
There are documented rules, and they should be followed.
- the patch for Makefile would not have worked when you rename the file
This is my internal problem, and I have tools to deal with that.
- can a patch produce a new file in CVS? If yes, how?
Of course it can. See the documentation in the README (and/or read in the diff man page about the "-N" option).
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk