On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Brian Norris <computersforpe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Leo, > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:44:01PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: >> On Fri, 27 May 2016 15:15:00 -0500 >> Leo Li <pku....@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Boris Brezillon >> > <boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com> wrote: >> > > On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:18:43 -0500 >> > > Leo Li <pku....@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> It seems that the patch at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/557389/ >> > >> mentioned above was not in tree for 4.7. Can you review and apply >> > >> that patch too? >> > > >> > > I see it in the PR Brian sent 2 days ago [1], so it should appear in >> > > Linus tree soon. >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > >> > > Boris >> > > >> > > [1]https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/9 >> > >> > >> > The pull request does have patch "mtd/ifc: Add support for IFC >> > controller version 2.0", but it doesn't have another patch >> > "driver/memory: Update dependency of IFC for >> > Layerscape"(https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/557389/) needed to make >> > the driver selectable on new hardware. > > Your patches seem to have broken threading. Or at least, in my mailbox, > I have that patch, but I can't easily find [PATCH 1/3] or [PATCH 3/3]. > Please fix your threading next time, to help ensure things get handled > together. > > (It also helps when you reply to the patch you're asking about, and not > to a different patch.) > >> Sorry, I overlooked that part in your different emails (even though you >> clearly stated that you needed both patches). >> >> For my defense, I haven't followed the patch series from the beginning, >> and only took the patch because Brian suggested to do so (and the >> changes seemed ok). >> It would have been clearer if the different patches were part of the >> same series. > > +1 to the last sentence. > >> Anyway, Brian, can you take it into your tree and make it appear in >> -rc1 (or earlier if it's still possible)? > > Not sure how I could get it any "earlier"? It's not making -rc1 at this > point. > >> BTW, in the patch description you say you're only modifying a Kconfig >> dependency, but you're actually doing more than that: you're removing >> an asm header inclusion and manually include several other headers >> (which I guess were previously included by asm/prom.h). > > Please resend this patch with a more complete commit description; I'd > like it to get actual review (and time in linux-next) before it gets > merged, so at best, it'll wait a few -rc's. I also suspect the patch > isn't optimal. I believe Scott has suggested [1] that we didn't need the > FSL_SOC dependency on the LBC driver. I think IFC looks like a similar > case?
Thanks Brian. Raghav, Can you do that as soon as possible? Regards, Leo _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev