From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Mundt Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mmc: sh_mmcif: simplify platform DMA configuration Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 13:15:54 +0900 Message-ID: <20110905041553.GB22142@linux-sh.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from linux-sh.org ([111.68.239.195]:53581 "EHLO linux-sh.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750833Ab1IEEQF (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2011 00:16:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Chris Ball On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 06:26:34PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > A simple cosmetic clean-up, no functional changes. Patch 2/2 depends on > patch 1/2 and can wait until 3.3. Paul, would you be able to put it under > the carpet somewhere until then or shall I resend it after 3.2-rc1 is out? > After both these patches have been applied, we can remove struct > sh_mmcif_plat_data::dma around 3.4 or 4.0 or whatever;-) > It's not a problem, I'll just flag it as awaiting upstream in the tracker. Anything flagged as such I generally give a once over after each merge window to see if their dependencies have been worked out. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Mundt Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 04:15:54 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mmc: sh_mmcif: simplify platform DMA configuration Message-Id: <20110905041553.GB22142@linux-sh.org> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 06:26:34PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > A simple cosmetic clean-up, no functional changes. Patch 2/2 depends on > patch 1/2 and can wait until 3.3. Paul, would you be able to put it under > the carpet somewhere until then or shall I resend it after 3.2-rc1 is out? > After both these patches have been applied, we can remove struct > sh_mmcif_plat_data::dma around 3.4 or 4.0 or whatever;-) > It's not a problem, I'll just flag it as awaiting upstream in the tracker. Anything flagged as such I generally give a once over after each merge window to see if their dependencies have been worked out.