From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Ball Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 00/16] omap_hsmmc patches Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:36:26 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1304673255-31634-1-git-send-email-adrian.hunter@nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from void.printf.net ([89.145.121.20]:41876 "EHLO void.printf.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755265Ab1GMPgi (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:36:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Grazvydas Ignotas's message of "Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:48:08 +0300") Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Grazvydas Ignotas Cc: Tony Lindgren , linux-omap Mailing List , linux-mmc Mailing List , linux-arm Mailing List , Adrian Hunter Hi, On Wed, Jul 13 2011, Grazvydas Ignotas wrote: > it seems this series got lost in time, at least patches 01, 02, 03, > 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 12 look like valid standalone fixes and > improvements to me, they don't touch other trees and still apply > cleanly, so would be good to have. Yeah. I didn't merge them because Tony still has unanswered comments on the OMAP side of the patches, and they're submitted as a single patchset. I've applied {2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12} to mmc-next for 3.1 now. 1 doesn't apply because the function doesn't exist anymore. 4 doesn't apply because iclk doesn't exist anymore. If someone wants to look at rebasing the rest of these against mmc-next and resubmitting, I think that'd be useful. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: cjb@laptop.org (Chris Ball) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:36:26 -0400 Subject: [PATCH V2 00/16] omap_hsmmc patches In-Reply-To: (Grazvydas Ignotas's message of "Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:48:08 +0300") References: <1304673255-31634-1-git-send-email-adrian.hunter@nokia.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On Wed, Jul 13 2011, Grazvydas Ignotas wrote: > it seems this series got lost in time, at least patches 01, 02, 03, > 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 12 look like valid standalone fixes and > improvements to me, they don't touch other trees and still apply > cleanly, so would be good to have. Yeah. I didn't merge them because Tony still has unanswered comments on the OMAP side of the patches, and they're submitted as a single patchset. I've applied {2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12} to mmc-next for 3.1 now. 1 doesn't apply because the function doesn't exist anymore. 4 doesn't apply because iclk doesn't exist anymore. If someone wants to look at rebasing the rest of these against mmc-next and resubmitting, I think that'd be useful. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child