From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
linus.walleij@linaro.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: "amba: Remove AMBA level regulator support" commit.
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:25:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120413112539.GS3168@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120413104900.GM24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 791 bytes --]
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:49:00AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:44:52AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I did say we should've been pushing Shawn's patch in as a minimal fix
> > for 3.4...
> What patch?
The original one which just changed the return code that's checked for.
> > Regardless of what happens for 3.4 we should keep the removal for -next,
> > it's clear that we don't want the bus doing this and it's causing
> > breakage for the non-ST platforms. Do I need to resend the patch to the
> > patch system or will the existing copy be OK?
> What I want is something that doesn't cause a regression for 3.4.
Well, if the overall result is something other than removing the code in
3.5 then we'll just get further regressions down the line.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: linux-next: "amba: Remove AMBA level regulator support" commit.
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:25:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120413112539.GS3168@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120413104900.GM24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:49:00AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:44:52AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I did say we should've been pushing Shawn's patch in as a minimal fix
> > for 3.4...
> What patch?
The original one which just changed the return code that's checked for.
> > Regardless of what happens for 3.4 we should keep the removal for -next,
> > it's clear that we don't want the bus doing this and it's causing
> > breakage for the non-ST platforms. Do I need to resend the patch to the
> > patch system or will the existing copy be OK?
> What I want is something that doesn't cause a regression for 3.4.
Well, if the overall result is something other than removing the code in
3.5 then we'll just get further regressions down the line.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20120413/f4fac225/attachment.sig>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-13 11:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-13 1:22 linux-next: "amba: Remove AMBA level regulator support" commit Paul Gortmaker
2012-04-13 1:22 ` Paul Gortmaker
2012-04-13 2:01 ` Shawn Guo
2012-04-13 2:01 ` Shawn Guo
2012-04-13 10:32 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-13 10:32 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-13 10:44 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-13 10:44 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-13 10:49 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-13 10:49 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-13 11:25 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2012-04-13 11:25 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-13 12:17 ` Fabio Estevam
2012-04-13 12:17 ` Fabio Estevam
2012-04-13 12:07 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-13 12:07 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-13 12:19 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-13 12:19 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-13 14:04 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-13 14:04 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-13 12:30 ` Linus Walleij
2012-04-13 12:30 ` Linus Walleij
2012-04-13 8:37 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-13 8:37 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-13 12:26 ` Linus Walleij
2012-04-13 12:26 ` Linus Walleij
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120413112539.GS3168@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--to=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
--cc=shawn.guo@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.