Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: qcom: finish converting register to FIELD_PREP

From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
Cc: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
	 Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	 Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,  linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: qcom: finish converting register to FIELD_PREP
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 11:55:22 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87bjv8sqcl.fsf@bootlin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <67aa6527.050a0220.173001.b011@mx.google.com> (Christian Marangi's message of "Mon, 10 Feb 2025 21:44:21 +0100")

Hi Christian,

>> I'm fine with your two patches. I was about to apply them, but the first
>> one needs to go through fixes, whereas the second through next, and they
>> are dependent on each other. I propose the following modification:
>> - create patch 1/2 with the content of the cleanup done just below, but
>>   only adapted to the very specific spot that is touched by the fix "fix
>>   broken config...". It would be a prerequisite for the fix.
>> - patch 2/2 would be the content of "fix broken config..."
>> 
>> And aside, a totally independent patch easy to apply on -rc1 with the
>> rest of this patch.
>> 
>> Would that work for you?
>>
>
> Mhhh are they really dependent on each other?
>
> I posted them in 2 separate patch as one should have priority and be
> applied ASAP. The other is really a cleanup and from what I can see no
> delta in the patch gets affected by the fix in the other patch.
>
> In theory they should apply independently.

Ah ok, I must have misread them, fine then.

Thanks,
Miquèl

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/