From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Ball Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11 v2] mmc: tmio/sdhi: hotplug & PM Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:06:20 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1327406500-7233-1-git-send-email-g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from void.printf.net ([89.145.121.20]:33415 "EHLO void.printf.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752616Ab2BEBGe (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Feb 2012 20:06:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Guennadi Liakhovetski's message of "Sun, 5 Feb 2012 01:56:25 +0100 (CET)") Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mundt , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Magnus Damm Hi, On Sat, Feb 04 2012, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > Thanks. Actually, it recently occurred to me, that patches 3 and 10 should > actually be merged into one. So, if you like, I can produce a v3 with that > taken into account. The result would be exactly the same, I literally > would just apply #10 on top of #3 and commit the result with the same > commit description as the v2 of #3. Sure. > Shall I also rebase v3 on top of mmx-next and fix the failing patch? The > two ARM patches can be applied separately, but they have to go in after > this series then. Either way is ok with me, pulling all via mmc has the > advantage of not having to synchronise the pulls, but then the conflict > probability rises of course. I'm happy to take the ARM patches, but I'll need ACKs from the relevant arch maintainers to do that. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child