From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Pinchart Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 16:59:04 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 00/12] CCF support for Renesas r7s72100 Message-Id: <1725290.WIBK8uYmkH@avalon> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="nextPart5859945.KQlTq0hEDz" List-Id: References: <1394208048-32495-1-git-send-email-wsa@the-dreams.de> <1552759.qGZNIXqrb1@avalon> <20140307164741.GJ28943@katana> In-Reply-To: <20140307164741.GJ28943@katana> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org --nextPart5859945.KQlTq0hEDz Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Friday 07 March 2014 17:47:41 Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > That would have saved only 2 lines since we need the workaround a= nyhow > > > (MTU2) and would break the incremental approach of this series so= mewhat. > > > I'd like to keep it. > >=20 > > It would have saved one patch. If Simon needs to apply CCF support > > separately I'm fine with that approach, but if both changes are app= lied > > at the same time the SCIF patches could go in first. >=20 > Which one would be saved? We need to workaround anyhow (patch 5) and > some scif cleanup besides the workaround is needed, too (patch 7). No= ? Indeed, I got it wrong. We can leave it as-is then. =2D-=20 Regards, Laurent Pinchart --nextPart5859945.KQlTq0hEDz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAABAgAGBQJTGfrYAAoJEIkPb2GL7hl1UB4H/jHQA578Js/2IgTMSrPzy3Tq lLZIoVG9hHNOAJaGfIpmDSebTpdXFcFcaOS78SOTh7gqNjB8f4Ff2PNsf+N1n8UP M+wgg2L/KyFIvVVtmIg3Leo95Wg1U89J0h5pzWmSBpejzZpxrd+1VWnE5tFbB+Oc 5iHwEiOqz4bK4zyDi8HlUzyjFOGidHbhXyrmfrsrjaMSKiWYA7PSBm/cV+kRGswf mTqU0vr5ozrnTFVXFPcL97xWgOUW8xtgmyp6qxzZBS7hefY1c1BYAzanp6+gZPxZ nowmhMS6rriAJ4CEmRFnm8IFAf40qiOJ2QotgJGLHHpX6KpGSZxJY+uI1j5j5Bo= =Pmqp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart5859945.KQlTq0hEDz--