On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:55:44AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Simon Horman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 02:25:04PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> (this time reply-to-all) > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Chris Brandt <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> > >> > Signed-off-by: Chris Brandt <[email protected]> > >> > Fixes: 66474697923c ("ARM: dts: r7s72100: add sdhi to device tree") > >> > >> Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> > > > > Thanks, I have queued this up for v4.12. > > > > The fixes tag above indicates this is a fix for v4.10, however, when I > > tried to apply it on top of v4.11-rc1 there was a conflict. So I think a > > backport will be required if we want it to be considered for v4.11 and be > > considered for and in turn v4.10-stable. > > That's because of commit 3d2abda02ad2d06d > ("ARM: dts: r7s72100: update sdhi clock bindings") > > > This makes things a bit messy with regards to conflicts between v4.11 and > > v4.12 and I'm inclined to pass on the backport. > > If you ever want to backport, you'll have two backport changes too the > SDHI driver, too.
Is that the case if only this patch (and not 3d2abda02ad2d06d) is backported?
