From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:25:42 +0100 Subject: linux-next: "amba: Remove AMBA level regulator support" commit. In-Reply-To: <20120413104900.GM24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20120413012230.GA30438@windriver.com> <20120413103207.GL24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120413104452.GR3168@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20120413104900.GM24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20120413112539.GS3168@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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: