From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rjw@sisk.pl (Rafael J. Wysocki) Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 22:24:01 +0200 Subject: [GIT PULL] Urgent fixes (for v3.4 if possible) for Renesas ARM-based platforms In-Reply-To: <201205122208.13817.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <201205112025.13478.rjw@sisk.pl> <201205122208.13817.rjw@sisk.pl> Message-ID: <201205122224.01206.rjw@sisk.pl> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Saturday, May 12, 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, May 12, 2012, Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Guennadi Liakhovetski > > wrote: > > > On Fri, 11 May 2012, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > > > >> Hej Magnus, > > >> > > >> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Magnus Damm wrote: > > >> > > >> >>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/renesas.git fixes > > >> >> > > >> >> No such branch (nor tag). > > >> > > > >> > I believe Rafael will get back to you about that when he gets to his computer. > > >> > > >> Yep, good. > > >> > > >> >>> Guennadi Liakhovetski (2): > > >> >>> ARM: mach-shmobile: convert ag5evm to use the generic MMC GPIO hotplug helper > > >> >>> ARM: mach-shmobile: convert mackerel to use the generic MMC GPIO hotplug helper > > >> >> > > >> >> These seem to fix the long-standing build errors on the two platforms, > > >> >> but that's impossible to tell from reading the commit messages (they > > >> >> are empty). Care to add one describing why they're important to go in? > > >> > > > >> > I only know that a) some boards don't build without these fixes and b) > > >> > they used to build just fine. > > >> > > > >> > Perhaps Guennadi [CC:ed] could be so kind to fill us in with the blanks? > > >> > > >> It was pretty obvious once I tried applying them and building that > > >> they did indeed resolve the build errors. However, the reason I'm > > >> asking for a better description is that when looking at just the pull > > >> request, or even the patch full commit description, it was impossible > > >> to tell why the patch was urgent as a fix. So, while I am not > > >> questioning that the patch should be included, I'm just requesting to > > >> make sure it's properly described. That's also good for historical > > >> purposes when someone is reading the git logs a year from now, etc. > > > > > > Ok, sorry, I wasn't sure from the previous mail - would you prefer to > > > actually extend their commit messages? As described here > > > > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/12744/focus=12748 > > > > > > These patches are a part of a patch-series, so, when they were submitted > > > in that context, it was pretty obvious how they relate to the rest. > > > However, unfortunately, they are now applied later than the main patches > > > in that series, so, their purpose has become much less obvious, and their > > > main feature now seems to be not the conversion of the affected platforms, > > > but fixing the build. > > > > Yeah, that seems to be what happened here, so indeed by now the > > commits are a bit out of context. > > > > > So, I think, we could use something like this in the > > > patch descriptions: > > > > > > This also fixes modular mmc build on this platform by eliminating the use > > > of an inline function, which calls into the mmc core. > > > > Sounds good, with a cut-and-paste of the build error that happens > > without the patch for extra credit. > > > > Rafael, can you add the above or something like it to the commit > > messages when you push out the fixes branch? > > Well, I've pushed it already, but I can still update it. Please don't > pull from it yet. OK, updated and pushed back. Do you want me to send a new pull request for it? Rafael