linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] ATA/ARM: convert ARM/DaVinci to use libata PATA drivers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 21 Mar 2017 14:08:26 +0530
From:   Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
CC:     Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
        Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
        <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] ATA/ARM: convert ARM/DaVinci to use libata PATA
 drivers

On Friday 17 March 2017 03:02 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 05:36:51PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patchset adds Palmchip BK3710 IDE controller driver to
>> libata and switches ARM/DaVinci to use it (instead of the old
>> IDE driver).
>>
>> Sekhar, please check that it still works after changes, thanks.
>>
>> Changes since v1
>> (https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg567442.html):
>> - addressed review comments from Sergei Shtylyov
>> - fixed cycle_time unitialized variable issue
>>
>> Changes since v0.1 draft patch version
>> (https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg566932.html):
>> - fixed cycle_time build warning
>> - added platform support fixes from Sekhar
>> - added defconfig changes from Sekhar
>> - preserved platform support for the old IDE driver
>> - split it on 3 patches
> 
> Looks fine to me from libata side.  Once it gets tested, how should
> the patches be routed?  I don't think it'd make sense to route them
> separately.

Hi Tejun, I can take the series through ARM-SoC tree with your ack.

Thanks,
Sekhar