From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pf0-x242.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c00::242]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1b6P4B-0005Rb-71 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 21:13:11 +0000 Received: by mail-pf0-x242.google.com with SMTP id c84so6773930pfc.1 for ; Fri, 27 May 2016 14:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 14:12:47 -0700 From: Brian Norris To: Boris Brezillon Cc: Leo Li , Yang-Leo Li , Prabhakar Kushwaha , Scott Wood , Raghav Dogra , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , linuxppc-dev , Raghav Dogra , Jaiprakash Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH][v3] mtd/ifc: Add support for IFC controller version 2.0 Message-ID: <20160527211247.GA123214@google.com> References: <1455840434.2463.97.camel@buserror.net> <20160406175254.GC5243@localhost> <20160408024507.69fb4fc1@bbrezillon> <20160525223412.086e45e9@bbrezillon> <20160527224401.4b776ad4@bbrezillon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160527224401.4b776ad4@bbrezillon> List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Leo, On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:44:01PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Fri, 27 May 2016 15:15:00 -0500 > Leo Li wrote: > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Boris Brezillon > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:18:43 -0500 > > > Leo Li wrote: > > >> It seems that the patch at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/557389/ > > >> mentioned above was not in tree for 4.7. Can you review and apply > > >> that patch too? > > > > > > I see it in the PR Brian sent 2 days ago [1], so it should appear in > > > Linus tree soon. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Boris > > > > > > [1]https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/9 > > > > > > The pull request does have patch "mtd/ifc: Add support for IFC > > controller version 2.0", but it doesn't have another patch > > "driver/memory: Update dependency of IFC for > > Layerscape"(https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/557389/) needed to make > > the driver selectable on new hardware. Your patches seem to have broken threading. Or at least, in my mailbox, I have that patch, but I can't easily find [PATCH 1/3] or [PATCH 3/3]. Please fix your threading next time, to help ensure things get handled together. (It also helps when you reply to the patch you're asking about, and not to a different patch.) > Sorry, I overlooked that part in your different emails (even though you > clearly stated that you needed both patches). > > For my defense, I haven't followed the patch series from the beginning, > and only took the patch because Brian suggested to do so (and the > changes seemed ok). > It would have been clearer if the different patches were part of the > same series. +1 to the last sentence. > Anyway, Brian, can you take it into your tree and make it appear in > -rc1 (or earlier if it's still possible)? Not sure how I could get it any "earlier"? It's not making -rc1 at this point. > BTW, in the patch description you say you're only modifying a Kconfig > dependency, but you're actually doing more than that: you're removing > an asm header inclusion and manually include several other headers > (which I guess were previously included by asm/prom.h). Please resend this patch with a more complete commit description; I'd like it to get actual review (and time in linux-next) before it gets merged, so at best, it'll wait a few -rc's. I also suspect the patch isn't optimal. I believe Scott has suggested [1] that we didn't need the FSL_SOC dependency on the LBC driver. I think IFC looks like a similar case? Brian [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2016-January/064855.html