On Thursday 08 January 2015 07:30:36 Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
>
> Hmm... indeed Arnd's patch and my patch-set conflicts.
> I have these patch / patch-set
> 1) header cleanup for tmio
> 2) slave_id cleanup for shdma
> 3) add DMA feature for sh_mobile_sdhi
>
> 1 ) and 2) conflicts here. one idea is like this
> 1) header cleanup for tmio
> 2) add DMA feature for sh_mobile_sdhi
> 3) slave_id cleanup for shdma
>
> 1) and 2) can be controled by Ulf with no-conflict.
> if these are merged correctly, I can send 3) to DMAEngine ML.
> Then, I can point the Ulf's branch as base branch.
>
> Arnd, Ulf what do you think ?
>
Sounds good. You could also leave out the sh_mobile_sdhi part from
3) patch to avoid the conflict, and add a comment in that place
as part of 2), to say that the slave_id assignment can be removed
once the other parts are done. That way, we know where we're at
if we want to remove slave_id from dma_slave_config and it's still
part of the sdhi driver.
Arnd
--
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
