> -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Wood [mailto:o...@buserror.net] > Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 6:12 AM > To: Raghav Dogra <raghav.do...@nxp.com>; Brian Norris > <computersforpe...@gmail.com>; Li Yang <le...@freescale.com> > Cc: Raghav Dogra <rag...@freescale.com>; linux-...@lists.infradead.org; > linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Prabhakar Kushwaha > <prabhakar.kushw...@nxp.com>; Jaiprakash Singh > <b44...@freescale.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd/ifc: Add support for IFC controller version 2.0 > > On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 06:18 +0000, Raghav Dogra wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Brian Norris [mailto:computersforpe...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 1:14 AM > > > To: Li Yang <le...@freescale.com> > > > Cc: Raghav Dogra <rag...@freescale.com>; > > > linux-...@lists.infradead.org; linuxppc-dev > > > <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; o...@buserror.net; Prabhakar > > > Kushwaha <prabhakar.kushw...@nxp.com>; Jaiprakash Singh > > > <b44...@freescale.com> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd/ifc: Add support for IFC controller version > > > 2.0 > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 05:07:16PM -0600, Li Yang wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:36 AM, Raghav Dogra > > > > <rag...@freescale.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > The new IFC controller version 2.0 has a different memory map page. > > > > > Upto IFC 1.4 PAGE size is 4 KB and from IFC2.0 PAGE size is 64KB. > > > > > This patch segregates the IFC global and runtime registers to > > > > > appropriate PAGE sizes. > > > > > > > > If the global registers and the runtime registers are so > > > > independent that they have to be on different page boundaries, it > > > > would make more sense for them to be defined as separate reg > > > > regions in the device tree at the very beginning. Then we would > > > > only need to change the device tree now and it would be future proof > for any page size. > > > > > > To be clear: Scott, you were NACK'ing the DT binding change request, > > > right? I though we had an Ack on the previous revision (that Raghav > > > failed to carry). > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jaiprakash Singh <b44...@freescale.com> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Raghav Dogra <rag...@freescale.com> > > > > > > > > The patch cannot apply on latest 4.5-rc cleanly either. > > > > Otherwise, > > > > > > Yeah... neither this patch nor its (allegedly) dependent patch [1] > > > apply cleanly. > > > > > > If you expect me to take this patch via MTD, please rebase to > > > l2-mtd.git as stated here: > > > > > > http://linux-mtd.infradead.org/source.html > > > > > I expect Scott to pick this patch, and apply via linuxppc-dev. I will > > send the patch on based on > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git > > Branch "master" > > Why are you expecting that, for a patch that touches an MTD driver and > doesn't touch arch/powerpc, and for which I've already given an ack for it to > go via the MTD tree?
I was expecting that because this patch is dependent on the "drivers/memory: Add deep sleep support for IFC" patch https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/582762/ for which an ACK is still pending. So, till you ACK that patch, Brian won't be able to pick that patch, I guess. So, I thought you can pick both the patches when an ACK is given to the deep sleep patch. Anyhow, I have sent the newer version of this patch which is applicable on l2-mtd.git But it is still dependent on the deep sleep patch (which is applicable now on l2-mtd.git as well) -Raghav > > What tree did you use to generate this patch? If there's stuff in the MTD > tree that conflicts, that's all the more reason to send it via the MTD tree > (after rebasing onto it). > > -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
