From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Ball Subject: Re: [PATCH REPOST 1/2] mmc: tegra: use bus-width property instead of support-8bit Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 14:56:47 +0100 Message-ID: <20120606135647.GA3423@void.printf.net> References: <1338834755-6900-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from void.printf.net ([89.145.121.20]:42408 "EHLO void.printf.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754803Ab2FFN44 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2012 09:56:56 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1338834755-6900-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Warren Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Olof Johansson , Colin Cross , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Warren On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 12:32:34PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > From: Stephen Warren > > Update the driver to parse the new unified bus-width property introduced > in commit 7f21779 "mmc: dt: Consolidate DT bindings", instead of the legacy > support-8bit property. > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren > --- > Chris, It's probably easiest conflict-wise if I take this through the Tegra > tree. (Note: When I posted this series before, I said there shouldn't be any > conflicts if you take them through the MMC tree. That's probably still true, > but unforseen future conflicts seem more likely in the .dts files in the > second patch than sdhci-tegra.c in this patch, so the Tegra tree may make > more sense). Since the second patch depends on the first, it's easiest if > these go in through the same tree. Does this sound OK? Yes, makes sense -- taking this via the Tegra tree is fine: Acked-by: Chris Ball Thanks! - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child