In message 1093270471.29614.7.camel@blarg.somerset.sps.mot.com you wrote:
Oh, I'm happy to keep it in a consistent state. That's not the question I was trying to get answered. I'm seeking acceptance of the condition that I can not test all the affected boards even though the patch would necessarily touch many boards. Compile, sure. Test, no way.
Submit a patch and hope that the board maintainers will test it. If they don't test and/or don't find any problems, there will be no complaints, and the patch will get added one day to the CVS tree.
Don't put to many different things into a single patch. This last part has a chance of being rejected (depending on what you're going to do; I'm not sure I understand your intentions).
I never said it would all be one patch.
Thanks. Maybe I misunderstood.
Furthermore, I was merely suggesting I'd be willing to work on the suggestion that Dan Malek had proposed. ACtually, just one aspect of it, specifically WRT the ethernet MAC address fields.
I think you misunderstood this. We already have different bd_info's for different processors, i. e. it looks different on a 8xx than it does on a 4xx. But within one class of processors iit should be fixed. Should ;-)
As I have it in my tree now, it has been left conditional, just the names of the #ifdef conditional has changed.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk