Re: [GIT PULL] fixes for tidspbridge 2.6.37-rc1

Greg KH
2010-11-09T17:25:39Z

On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 11:04:18AM -0600, Guzman Lugo, Fernando wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 05:29:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 09 November 2010, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> > Felipe Contreras (14):
> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - update Kconfig to select IOMMU module"
> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - remove dmm custom module"
> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - deprecate reserve/unreserve_memory funtions"
> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - remove reserved memory clean up"
> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge: remove dw_dmmu_base from cfg_hostres struct"
> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - move all iommu related code to a new file"
> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - remove hw directory"
> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - fix mmufault support"
> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - remove custom mmu code from tiomap3430.c"
> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - rename bridge_brd_mem_map/unmap to a proper name"
> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - move shared memory iommu maps to tiomap3430.c"
> >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge: replace iommu custom for opensource implementation"
> >>
> >> That adds quite a lot of crap back in that was removed by Fernando earlier:
> >>
> >>  44 files changed, 3733 insertions(+), 847 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> It may have been premature to merge the patches as you say, but now that
> >> they are in, I'd vote for giving Fernando a chance to fix up any damage
> >> that was done in the process rather than just reverting all the useful
> >> changes.
> >
> > In looking at this further, I agree.
> >
> > Felipe, are all of these really needing to be reverted?  How about
> > picking out the functional changes that need to be resolved instead of
> > just rolling back everything that has been done here.  Surely not all of
> > these are wrong, right?
>
> Patches are _NOT_ wrong, missing dependencies break the bridge.
> Without that dependencies the first patch of the set won't work and
> all other patches have dependency on the first one, so all of them
> need to be reverted.

How about hand-reverting only the wrong patch, so the other work isn't
lost? I'd much prefer that.

thanks,

greg k-h