From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 03:53:53 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/16] ARM: shmobile: SDHI support for r8a7790 Message-Id: <20131121035351.GA5429@verge.net.au> List-Id: References: <87li0rz3to.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <87txffxofc.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <87a9h6o2gi.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <20131118072111.GG27935@verge.net.au> <878uwm6tru.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> In-Reply-To: <878uwm6tru.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Kuninori Morimoto Cc: Laurent , Chris Ball , Magnus , Linux-SH , Kuninori Morimoto , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:42:02PM -0800, Kuninori Morimoto wrote: > > Hi Simon > > > > These are v2 of SDHI support for r8a7790. > > > > > > Kuninori Morimoto (2): > > > ARM: shmobile: lager: add gpio/fixed regulator for SDHI > > > ARM: shmobile: lager: add SDHI0/2 support > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/board-lager.c | 149 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > > > Hi Morimoto-san, > > > > I assume that these two patches depend on at least > > some of the first 14 patches. Is that correct? > > Compile itself is not depend on first 14 patches, > but, it doesn't work correctly without these patches. > So, yes, it depend on 14 patches. What is the run-time effect of these 2 patches without the other 14. Is it a) Things get worse and will only get better with the other 14 patches or; b) Things stay the same and will get better with the other 14 patches? In the case of b I am inclined to queue these patches up once/if Chris has indicated that the other 14 patches are ok. In the case of a I would like to wait and queue up these patches on top of the other 14 patches once/if they are available in a stable branch.