From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: MMC related patches Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:53:48 -0800 Message-ID: <20091112225348.GI24837@atomide.com> References: <00b401ca632b$8c84d6e0$544ff780@am.dhcp.ti.com> <20091112022931.GV24837@atomide.com> <009601ca63e6$8390c010$544ff780@am.dhcp.ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.71]:55559 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754753AbZKLWxp (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:53:45 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <009601ca63e6$8390c010$544ff780@am.dhcp.ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Madhusudhan Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org * Madhusudhan [091112 14:21]: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tony Lindgren [mailto:tony@atomide.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:30 PM > > To: Madhusudhan > > Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org > > Subject: Re: MMC related patches > > > > * Madhusudhan [091111 16:02]: > > > Hi Tony, > > > > > > Just a ping on the below patches. I did not see any comments on them. > > Are > > > you planning to push them? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Madhu > > > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=125668573422479&w=2 > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=125624185318767&w=2 > > > > OK, adding. > > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=125623349405262&w=2 > > > > This needs to be refreshed against board-zoom-peripherals.c now > > in omap for-next. But if it depends on 3630 mux patch, > > let's wait on that until we have the new mux framework. > > > Sure, I will rebase and send a new patch. It should not have any dependency > on 3630 mux patch. OK, thanks. > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=125623339105103&w=2 > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=125623327504912&w=2 > > > > Adding. > > > > Also, this needs to be refreshed: > > > > http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/45196/ > > > This one is an omap4 mmc patch which is already in the tree. Why does this > need to be refreshed? Oops, never mind, I'm out of date again :) Tony