All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: nicolas.ferre@atmel.com (Nicolas Ferre)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH for 3.0] AT91: Change nand buswidth logic to match hardware default configuration
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:17:49 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E11D99D.7040005@atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201107041713.23982.arnd@arndb.de>

Le 04/07/2011 17:13, Arnd Bergmann :
> On Monday 04 July 2011, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>>> In this case, studying the patch more closely shows that it's
>>> very harmless, but I'd rather not have to look that closely.
>>
>> Well, in fact it is a fix against what was introduced in a 3.0 patch
>> which I found to be wrong.
>> The reason because I do not want to be in next kernel is the fact that
>> it can puzzle the user (people that want to use kernel without changing
>> the system_rev between 2.6.39 -> 3.0 and again revert their changes for
>> 3.0 -> 3.1).
>>
>>> Am I correct that the bug is a regression against 2.6.39?
>>
>> No, in fact it was introduced during 3.0 early -rc.
> 
> That's what I mean by 'regression against 2.6.39': it was working in 2.6.39,
> but later kernels are broken without this fix.

Absolutely (here broken = not easily understandable by user).

Bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, patrice.vilchez@atmel.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 3.0] AT91: Change nand buswidth logic to match hardware default configuration
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:17:49 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E11D99D.7040005@atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201107041713.23982.arnd@arndb.de>

Le 04/07/2011 17:13, Arnd Bergmann :
> On Monday 04 July 2011, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>>> In this case, studying the patch more closely shows that it's
>>> very harmless, but I'd rather not have to look that closely.
>>
>> Well, in fact it is a fix against what was introduced in a 3.0 patch
>> which I found to be wrong.
>> The reason because I do not want to be in next kernel is the fact that
>> it can puzzle the user (people that want to use kernel without changing
>> the system_rev between 2.6.39 -> 3.0 and again revert their changes for
>> 3.0 -> 3.1).
>>
>>> Am I correct that the bug is a regression against 2.6.39?
>>
>> No, in fact it was introduced during 3.0 early -rc.
> 
> That's what I mean by 'regression against 2.6.39': it was working in 2.6.39,
> but later kernels are broken without this fix.

Absolutely (here broken = not easily understandable by user).

Bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre


  reply	other threads:[~2011-07-04 15:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-07-01 10:25 [PATCH for 3.0] AT91: Change nand buswidth logic to match hardware default configuration Nicolas Ferre
2011-07-01 10:25 ` Nicolas Ferre
2011-07-04  9:37 ` Nicolas Ferre
2011-07-04  9:37   ` Nicolas Ferre
2011-07-04 14:25   ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-07-04 14:25     ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-07-04 14:41     ` Nicolas Ferre
2011-07-04 14:41       ` Nicolas Ferre
2011-07-04 15:13       ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-07-04 15:13         ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-07-04 15:17         ` Nicolas Ferre [this message]
2011-07-04 15:17           ` Nicolas Ferre

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=4E11D99D.7040005@atmel.com \
    --to=nicolas.ferre@atmel.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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.