From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org (Greg KH) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:48:26 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: mvebu: pass the coherency availability information at init time In-Reply-To: <559294EF.9040906@uclinux.org> References: <1433992764-12753-1-git-send-email-gerg@uclinux.org> <20150611034521.GA12809@kroah.com> <557908C2.4090302@uclinux.org> <20150611092549.2276beb8@free-electrons.com> <20150611145129.GA3777@kroah.com> <557A33AF.9030101@uclinux.org> <20150630003105.GF6430@kroah.com> <559294EF.9040906@uclinux.org> Message-ID: <20150630164826.GA4932@kroah.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:09:03PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > > > On 30/06/15 10:31, Greg KH wrote: > >On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:19:43AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > >>On 12/06/15 00:51, Greg KH wrote: > >>>On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 09:25:49AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > >>>>Greg, Greg, > >>>> > >>>>On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:04:18 +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>Why? What's wrong with taking the exact specific upstream patches > >>>>>>instead? > >>>>>The exact patch mentioned below ("5686a1e5aa4") will not apply. > >>>>>Too much of the code around it has changed. This does the same > >>>>>thing in the same away taking into account the changes around it. > >>>>As the original author of 5686a1e5aa4 ("bus: mvebu: pass the coherency > >>>>availability information at init time"), I can confirm that it will > >>>>clearly not apply as is on 3.10. What Greg Ungerer is proposing here is > >>>>a backport of 5686a1e5aa4 to 3.10. > >>>What about 3.14-stable? > >>As Thomas pointed out, yes. Due to file movements and other changes > >>neither this patch (for 3.10.y) or the original commit 5686a1e5aa4 > >>apply cleanly to 3.14.y. > >> > >>How do you want to handle that for 3.14.y? > >I need a backport for 3.14.y as well. > > > >And I need a signed-off-by: from the subsystem maintainers that this > >backport is acceptable, as it's so different from what is in Linus's > >tree, before I can take it. > > Ok, I will prepare a 3.14 port. I will send to all recipients of this mail, > that should catch all those who need to sign off on it. > > I have generated a version 2 of the original 3.10 patch. No change to > the code diffs, but it changes the commit message to include all of the > original commit followed by a brief description of the back port. Perhaps > this is better? Yes, much better, thanks, I'll go queue those up later today. greg k-h From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:46099 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752625AbbF3Qs1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:48:27 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:48:26 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Greg Ungerer Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , stable@vger.kernel.org, gregory.clement@free-electrons.com, jason@lakedaemon.net, andrew@lunn.ch, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: mvebu: pass the coherency availability information at init time Message-ID: <20150630164826.GA4932@kroah.com> References: <1433992764-12753-1-git-send-email-gerg@uclinux.org> <20150611034521.GA12809@kroah.com> <557908C2.4090302@uclinux.org> <20150611092549.2276beb8@free-electrons.com> <20150611145129.GA3777@kroah.com> <557A33AF.9030101@uclinux.org> <20150630003105.GF6430@kroah.com> <559294EF.9040906@uclinux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <559294EF.9040906@uclinux.org> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:09:03PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > > > On 30/06/15 10:31, Greg KH wrote: > >On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:19:43AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > >>On 12/06/15 00:51, Greg KH wrote: > >>>On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 09:25:49AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > >>>>Greg, Greg, > >>>> > >>>>On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:04:18 +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>Why? What's wrong with taking the exact specific upstream patches > >>>>>>instead? > >>>>>The exact patch mentioned below ("5686a1e5aa4") will not apply. > >>>>>Too much of the code around it has changed. This does the same > >>>>>thing in the same away taking into account the changes around it. > >>>>As the original author of 5686a1e5aa4 ("bus: mvebu: pass the coherency > >>>>availability information at init time"), I can confirm that it will > >>>>clearly not apply as is on 3.10. What Greg Ungerer is proposing here is > >>>>a backport of 5686a1e5aa4 to 3.10. > >>>What about 3.14-stable? > >>As Thomas pointed out, yes. Due to file movements and other changes > >>neither this patch (for 3.10.y) or the original commit 5686a1e5aa4 > >>apply cleanly to 3.14.y. > >> > >>How do you want to handle that for 3.14.y? > >I need a backport for 3.14.y as well. > > > >And I need a signed-off-by: from the subsystem maintainers that this > >backport is acceptable, as it's so different from what is in Linus's > >tree, before I can take it. > > Ok, I will prepare a 3.14 port. I will send to all recipients of this mail, > that should catch all those who need to sign off on it. > > I have generated a version 2 of the original 3.10 patch. No change to > the code diffs, but it changes the commit message to include all of the > original commit followed by a brief description of the back port. Perhaps > this is better? Yes, much better, thanks, I'll go queue those up later today. greg k-h