From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753522AbbAIWeE (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2015 17:34:04 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:37727 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753132AbbAIWeC (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2015 17:34:02 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 14:34:01 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Stefan Agner Cc: jslaby@suse.cz, jingchang.lu@freescale.com, shawn.guo@linaro.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] serial: fsl_lpuart: fix various DMA related issues Message-ID: <20150109223401.GA15118@kroah.com> References: <1417134205-4400-1-git-send-email-stefan@agner.ch> <677f2c62b6b6c1fe8e16cd38d5f20d47@agner.ch> <20141212143244.GA2219@kroah.com> <20150109221432.GA4056@kroah.com> <742637f13bc97ecaadd1d264cd0ad4cc@agner.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <742637f13bc97ecaadd1d264cd0ad4cc@agner.ch> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 11:19:50PM +0100, Stefan Agner wrote: > On 2015-01-09 23:14, Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 05:19:02PM +0100, Stefan Agner wrote: > >> On 2014-12-12 15:32, Greg KH wrote: > >> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 02:44:06PM +0100, Stefan Agner wrote: > >> >> Any thoughts on this patchset? Would have hopped that it makes it into > >> >> 3.19 as those are mostly fixes. > >> > > >> > "mostly"? > >> > > >> > >> Well, all of them fix a bug, but PATCH 2/4 does this by also moving DMA > >> allocation to probe. I would really have to split up that patch and make > >> two incremental steps (split-up of RX/TX DMA allocation to make each > >> single action revert-able and move to probe). But this would lead to > >> more changed lines in total. The patchset as is already somewhat tested > >> since we use it in our 3.18 BSP, whereas a new set would not be tested. > >> > >> One could also argument, it only affects fsl_lpuart (UART in rather not > >> very widespread SoC's Freescale Vybrid and LS1021a). > >> > >> > >> > I'll get to these after 3.19-rc1 is out, but it really looks like these > >> > will be for 3.20-rc1, unless you break them up into "bugfix only" type > >> > patches. > >> > >> > >> PATCH 1/4 fixes a bug which happens on a normal console rather often on > >> my setup. So if you decide that patchset is for 3.20-rc1, that one would > >> be nice to have in 3.19 as well... > > > > Please redo this patchset then, makeing it obvious that some are fixes, > > and need to go for 3.19 and others are ok for 3.20. As it is, the > > changelog entries do not look like anything here is for 3.19, sorry. > > > > Ok, will create a patchset with 1 and 3 for 3.19 (since this two really > lead to reproducible kernel traces), and the rest for 3.20. Do you > prefer to have the patches in a single patchset (with 3 moved to 2) or > should I create two patchsets? What would you want if you were in my shoes and had to maintain two different branches? (hint, two different patchsets...) greg k-h