Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mmc-uh tree with the sunxi tree

[Ulf Hansson]

On 21 January 2015 at 13:12, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:27:09PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 20 January 2015 at 04:17, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Hi Ulf,
>> >
>> > Today's linux-next merge of the mmc-uh tree got a conflict in
>> > drivers/mmc/host/sunxi-mmc.c between commit 6c09bb851e57 ("mmc: sunxi:
>> > Convert MMC driver to the standard clock phase API") from the sunxi
>> > tree and commit 776e24c502da ("mmc: sunxi: Removing unused code") from
>> > the mmc-uh tree.
>> >
>> > I fixed it up (the former includes the latter change) and can carry the
>> > fix as necessary (no action is required).
>>
>> Maxime,
>>
>> I can't find the sunxi tree, is it listed in MAINTAINERS?
>
> No, it's not, I should probably add it :)
>
> It is here: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mripard/linux.git/
>
>> I know I have acked below patch, but that was quite a I while ago. Is
>> there any reason to why I can't take it through my mmc tree at this
>> point?
>> "mmc: sunxi: Convert MMC driver to the standard clock phase API".
>
> It still is needed to preserve bisectability, which is why you acked
> it in the first place. Otherwise, you would end up with a build
> breakage in the clock tree, because the mmc driver would still use the
> removed custom phase functions, and a failing MMC driver in your tree
> because the MMC clocks would not have the phase callbacks implemented.
>
> It's a pretty wide window of failure, and especially for the build
> breakage, I don't think it would be wise to split these patches.

Okay, I am fine with you taking the patch.

Kind regards
Uffe
--
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/