> -----Original Message----- > From: Leo Li [mailto:pku....@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2016 3:34 AM > To: Brian Norris <computersforpe...@gmail.com>; Raghav Dogra > <raghav.do...@nxp.com> > Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com>; Yang-Leo Li > <leoyang...@nxp.com>; Prabhakar Kushwaha > <prabhakar.kushw...@nxp.com>; Scott Wood <o...@buserror.net>; linux- > m...@lists.infradead.org; linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; > Raghav Dogra <rag...@freescale.com>; Jaiprakash Singh > <b44...@freescale.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH][v3] mtd/ifc: Add support for IFC controller version 2.0 > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Brian Norris > <computersforpe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Leo, > > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:44:01PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >> On Fri, 27 May 2016 15:15:00 -0500 > >> Leo Li <pku....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Boris Brezillon > >> > <boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com> wrote: > >> > > On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:18:43 -0500 Leo Li <pku....@gmail.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > >> It seems that the patch at > >> > >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/557389/ > >> > >> mentioned above was not in tree for 4.7. Can you review and > >> > >> apply that patch too? > >> > > > >> > > I see it in the PR Brian sent 2 days ago [1], so it should appear > >> > > in Linus tree soon. > >> > > > >> > > Regards, > >> > > > >> > > Boris > >> > > > >> > > [1]https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/9 > >> > > >> > > >> > The pull request does have patch "mtd/ifc: Add support for IFC > >> > controller version 2.0", but it doesn't have another patch > >> > "driver/memory: Update dependency of IFC for > >> > Layerscape"(https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/557389/) needed to > >> > make the driver selectable on new hardware. > > > > Your patches seem to have broken threading. Or at least, in my > > mailbox, I have that patch, but I can't easily find [PATCH 1/3] or [PATCH > 3/3]. > > Please fix your threading next time, to help ensure things get handled > > together. > > > > (It also helps when you reply to the patch you're asking about, and > > not to a different patch.) > > > >> Sorry, I overlooked that part in your different emails (even though > >> you clearly stated that you needed both patches). > >> > >> For my defense, I haven't followed the patch series from the > >> beginning, and only took the patch because Brian suggested to do so > >> (and the changes seemed ok). > >> It would have been clearer if the different patches were part of the > >> same series. > > > > +1 to the last sentence. > > > >> Anyway, Brian, can you take it into your tree and make it appear in > >> -rc1 (or earlier if it's still possible)? > > > > Not sure how I could get it any "earlier"? It's not making -rc1 at > > this point. > > > >> BTW, in the patch description you say you're only modifying a Kconfig > >> dependency, but you're actually doing more than that: you're removing > >> an asm header inclusion and manually include several other headers > >> (which I guess were previously included by asm/prom.h). > > > > Please resend this patch with a more complete commit description; I'd > > like it to get actual review (and time in linux-next) before it gets > > merged, so at best, it'll wait a few -rc's. I also suspect the patch > > isn't optimal. I believe Scott has suggested [1] that we didn't need > > the FSL_SOC dependency on the LBC driver. I think IFC looks like a > > similar case?
Hi Brian, The patch being talked about does not add a FSL_SOC dependency on the IFC driver. It uses a generic ARCH_LAYERSCAPE macro to enable IFC. This should be Ok? Regards, Raghav > > Thanks Brian. > > Raghav, Can you do that as soon as possible? > > Regards, > Leo _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
