From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pa0-x22c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ZNUqZ-0003gR-PD for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 23:45:16 +0000 Received: by pabxd6 with SMTP id xd6so55454866pab.2 for ; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 16:44:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 16:44:50 -0700 From: Brian Norris To: Scott Wood Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Jaiprakash Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 RESEND] IFC: Change IO accessor based on endianness Message-ID: <20150806234450.GU10676@google.com> References: <1432174631-30091-1-git-send-email-scottwood@freescale.com> <20150806165220.GS10676@google.com> <1438903478.2097.196.camel@freescale.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1438903478.2097.196.camel@freescale.com> List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 06:24:38PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On Thu, 2015-08-06 at 09:52 -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > Who takes patches for drivers/memory/ again? I can take it via MTD if > > no one else steps up. > There's no maintainer listed. IIRC, when we previously discussed the patch > we both said that it could go via either of our trees. I'll take it via mine. I recall the conversation. I was just confused (again) by there being no maintainer entry. Have at it. > > It's nothing new, but this patch continues the pattern of using a global > > pointer to the IFC device structure. Not pretty, but not worth holding > > this up over. > > It's not pretty, but I see little reason to come up with more complicated > infrastructure for the drivers finding each other given the low odds of ever > seeing a single-kernel system with more than one IFC. It's impossible with > current chips. If it ever does happen we can do something fancier. Yep, I figured as much. Brian