RE: [PATCH v4 0/5] zynq subarch cleanups

From: Michal Simek
Date: Mon Oct 29 2012 - 10:48:54 EST




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Cartwright [mailto:josh.cartwright@xxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 2:36 PM
> To: Michal Simek
> Cc: arm@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; John Linn; Nick Bowler; Arnd Bergmann
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] zynq subarch cleanups
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:24:16AM +0000, Michal Simek wrote:
> > Hi Josh,
> >
> > > Michal-
> > >
> > > Here is a v5 of the zynq cleanup patchset that addresses your
> > > feedback. I've intentionally left patches 4 and 5 in the set until
> > > we figure out the appropriate way to get them in tree (feel free to
> > > just apply 1-3)
> >
> > I am ok to pick just several patches from your patchset. But this is
> > no definitely good working style. Not expert for submission process
> > but I think that if there is one broken patch maintainer shouldn't
> > apply it. Can someone else check this?
>
> It turns out that with the change to patch 5 to map the uart to a known working
> address (instead of VMALLOC_END - 0x1000), patch 4 isn't needed, and as such
> can be dropped. (I didn't realize this until this morning until I had saw you had
> applied 1-3,5 to your tree, but not 4).
>
> So, for what it's worth, you've applied all of the relevant patches for this
> patchset.

Ok. Great.

Thanks,
MIchal


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/