Re: [PATCH V3 1/7] usb: phy: export ulpi_viewport_access_ops

[Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>]

On 06/12/2013 10:38 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:11:27AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 06/12/2013 09:06 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 02:03:03PM -0600, Stephen Warren
>>> wrote:
>>>> From: Manjunath Goudar <manjunath.goudar-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>>>> 
>>>> In order to build a ULPI PHY driver as a module, this symbol 
>>>> needs to be exported.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Manjunath Goudar <manjunath.goudar-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>>>>  [swarren, reworked Manjunath's patches to split them more 
>>>> logically] Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>>>>  Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org>
>>> 
>>> This should go straight through Greg:
>> 
>> All the patches in this series build on top of each-other, so I
>> think need to be applied in the same branch. Applying this patch
>> in branch A but the others in branch B will cause the build to
>> fail in branch B if the driver is built as a module, since
>> ulpi_viewport_access_ops isn't exported, right?
>> 
>> And this series is also based on top of all the Tegra driver
>> changes in your PHY branch, so I believe that is the correct
>> place to apply this.
> 
> Isn't it the same thing as Greg taking these patches after applying
> my pull request ? There's way too much outside of my domain here
> without proper Acks for me to pick it up anyway.

Yes.

I wasn't aware that you'd sent a pull request to Greg already though.
If you have, then it's fine for Greg to apply this series after the
PHY branch is pulled.

(I think Alan did Ack all the EHCI patches though, so either way is
probably fine...)