On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 03:53:18PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman >> <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 02:00:23PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote: >> >> Hi Greg, >> >> >> >> Please pull these changes for FPGA. >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> Alan >> >> >> >> The following changes since commit >> >> e3d31bda06e43968cd215ae590eb7cda827f01e9: >> >> >> >> Add linux-next specific files for 20161224 (2017-01-04 10:26:49 -0600) >> >> >> >> are available in the git repository at: >> >> >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/atull/linux-fpga.git >> >> tags/fpga-for-greg-20170104 >> >> >> >> for you to fetch changes up to 2dd088da8cce745c008fc7f8b64e1aef33eb37c2: >> >> >> >> ARM: ep93xx: Register ts73xx-fpga manager driver for TS-7300 >> >> (2017-01-04 10:27:26 -0600) >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> fpga: Updates for 4.10-rc2 >> >> >> >> * Add scatterlist based fpga programming >> >> * TS-7300 FPGA manager >> >> * zynq: Check for errors after completing DMA >> >> * fix sparse warnings in fpga-mgr and fpga-bridge >> > >> > These are all bugfixes or regression fixes? Doesn't seem like adding >> > new functionality and a new driver fits that category to me, why add >> > them now? >> > >> > Sorry, I can't take this, if you resend them as patches, I can be more >> > specific... >> > >> > thanks, >> > >> > greg k-h >> >> Hi Greg, >> >> Yes, sorry, I'm still learning here. One patch is a fix (sparse >> errors), the rest are new functionality. > > Ok, let's stick to patches then, no git pull requests, it makes things > easier that way for things to be reviewed properly.
That's cool. All these patches were posted and reviewed on lkml and some on linux-fpga list as well. I'm not trying to skip the mailing list. But I should have submitted them for the next release. Unfortunately, I had received some confusing advice about doing pull requests... > >> Would it be appropriate to separate these and send you two pull >> requests - the sparse error fix for 4.10 and the rest (new >> functionality) for 4.11? > > why would a sparse warning fix be ok for a -rc kernel? Is it a real > bug? It's better categorized as cleanup rather than a bug, so not needed for a rc. > > Send patches, we can go from there please. OK will do. Thanks for your help and patience! Alan > > thanks, > > greg k-h
