From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: gerg@uclinux.org (Greg Ungerer)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:09:03 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: mvebu: pass the coherency availability information
 at init time
In-Reply-To: <20150630003105.GF6430@kroah.com>
References: <1433992764-12753-1-git-send-email-gerg@uclinux.org>
 <20150611034521.GA12809@kroah.com> <557908C2.4090302@uclinux.org>
 <20150611092549.2276beb8@free-electrons.com>
 <20150611145129.GA3777@kroah.com> <557A33AF.9030101@uclinux.org>
 <20150630003105.GF6430@kroah.com>
Message-ID: <559294EF.9040906@uclinux.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org



On 30/06/15 10:31, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:19:43AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
>> On 12/06/15 00:51, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 09:25:49AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>>>> Greg, Greg,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:04:18 +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Why?  What's wrong with taking the exact specific upstream patches
>>>>>> instead?
>>>>> The exact patch mentioned below ("5686a1e5aa4") will not apply.
>>>>> Too much of the code around it has changed. This does the same
>>>>> thing in the same away taking into account the changes around it.
>>>> As the original author of 5686a1e5aa4 ("bus: mvebu: pass the coherency
>>>> availability information at init time"), I can confirm that it will
>>>> clearly not apply as is on 3.10. What Greg Ungerer is proposing here is
>>>> a backport of 5686a1e5aa4 to 3.10.
>>> What about 3.14-stable?
>> As Thomas pointed out, yes. Due to file movements and other changes
>> neither this patch (for 3.10.y) or the original commit 5686a1e5aa4
>> apply cleanly to 3.14.y.
>>
>> How do you want to handle that for 3.14.y?
> I need a backport for 3.14.y as well.
>
> And I need a signed-off-by: from the subsystem maintainers that this
> backport is acceptable, as it's so different from what is in Linus's
> tree, before I can take it.

Ok, I will prepare a 3.14 port. I will send to all recipients of this mail,
that should catch all those who need to sign off on it.

I have generated a version 2 of the original 3.10 patch. No change to
the code diffs, but it changes the commit message to include all of the
original commit followed by a brief description of the back port. Perhaps
this is better?

Regards
Greg