From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 01:44:31 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/03] ARM: shmobile: Remove KZM9D board code Message-Id: <20140217014427.GA25228@verge.net.au> List-Id: References: <20140213082558.30630.93034.sendpatchset@w520> <20140213082618.30630.64196.sendpatchset@w520> <20140217000202.GA18898@verge.net.au> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:36:25AM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > > Hi Magnus, > > > > I'm not clear on the motivation for removing emev2_smp_ops from > > emev2.h only to have to add it as an extern to setup-emev2.c. > > But if thats how you like to roll then I have no objections. > > Hehe, I suppose I felt a sudden urge to remove that particular header file. > > > However, what I would like to ask is that the emev2.h shuffling, > > that is the changes to emev2.h, setup-emev2.c and smp-emev2.c > > could be moved into a follow-up patch that I will queue up at a later date. > > That's fine. > > > The reason is that these really seem to be SoC changes but > > the main portion of this patch is a board change. And as you > > know the arm-soc people like soc and board changes split into > > different branches. > > Sure. Would you like me to redo 2/3 to break out the header file bits? Ideally, yes. Alternatively, I can just drop them from 2/3 and you can send a follow-up patch at a later date.