Hi Chris
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Dec 25 2011, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > Hmmm, that's very weird - I rebased my patch series on top of your
> > mmc-next from a couple of hours ago. Sorry for asking, but you've also
> > applied the leading two patches from this series, right? This is what my
> > log of this driver looks like now:
>
> Oops, that's it, thanks.
>
> Now I have:
>
> 13cb975 (HEAD, mmc-next) mmc: sh_mmcif: cosmetic clean up
> 9e66e1c mmc: sh_mmcif: process error interrupts first
> 9092a17 mmc: convert drivers/mmc/host/* to use module_platform_driver()
> 2736566 mmc: sh_mmcif: simplify clock divisor calculation
> 58f1934 mmc: sh_mmcif: fix clock gating on platforms with a .down_pwr() method
> 88b4767 mmc: Add module.h to drivers/mmc users assuming implicit presence.
> 714c4a6 mmc: sh_mmcif: simplify platform data
> c9b0cef mmc: sh_mmcif: maximize power saving
>
> But 4/4 ("mmc: sh_mmcif: remove now superfluous sh_mmcif_host::data
> member") isn't applying without fuzz (offset 13 lines). Any ideas/want
> to resend it?
I can resend it if you like, but in fact that fuzz is harmless - you can
go ahead with the patch you have at hand. But, please, do let me know if
you prefer to have an updated patch.
Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
