From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: josh.cartwright@ni.com (Josh Cartwright) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:36:09 -0600 Subject: [PATCH v4 0/5] zynq subarch cleanups In-Reply-To: <5c2911d7-f753-4d9f-b8d8-3bf011d58e52@TX2EHSMHS014.ehs.local> References: <5c2911d7-f753-4d9f-b8d8-3bf011d58e52@TX2EHSMHS014.ehs.local> Message-ID: <20121029133609.GE5190@beefymiracle.amer.corp.natinst.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:24:16AM +0000, Michal Simek wrote: > Hi Josh, > > > Michal- > > > > Here is a v5 of the zynq cleanup patchset that addresses your > > feedback. I've intentionally left patches 4 and 5 in the set until > > we figure out the appropriate way to get them in tree (feel free to > > just apply 1-3) > > I am ok to pick just several patches from your patchset. But this is > no definitely good working style. Not expert for submission process > but I think that if there is one broken patch maintainer shouldn't > apply it. Can someone else check this? It turns out that with the change to patch 5 to map the uart to a known working address (instead of VMALLOC_END - 0x1000), patch 4 isn't needed, and as such can be dropped. (I didn't realize this until this morning until I had saw you had applied 1-3,5 to your tree, but not 4). So, for what it's worth, you've applied all of the relevant patches for this patchset. Josh