[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110426124519.GC5977@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:45:19 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: "Nori, Sekhar" <nsekhar@...com>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Subhasish Ghosh <subhasish@...tralsolutions.com>,
"davinci-linux-open-source@...ux.davincidsp.com"
<davinci-linux-open-source@...ux.davincidsp.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Watkins, Melissa" <m-watkins@...com>,
"sachi@...tralsolutions.com" <sachi@...tralsolutions.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] tty: add pruss SUART driver
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:21:04PM +0530, Nori, Sekhar wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 02:50:56, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 05:38:26PM +0530, Subhasish Ghosh wrote:
> > > This patch adds support for the TTY compliant
> > > Soft-UART device emulated on PRUSS.
> > >
> > > This patch depends on:
> > > davinci: macro rename DA8XX_LPSC0_DMAX to DA8XX_LPSC0_PRUSS.
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/615681/
>
> This is already in mainline. Plus this patch
> doesn't really seem to depend on this commit.
>
> > > davinci: changed SRAM allocator to shared ram.
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/549351/
>
> There should be no build time dependency with this patch
> (the above patch just changes which pool of SRAM the
> allocation happens from)
>
> But, this brings out an important dependency of the patch
> calling platform specific sram allocator functions. There
> has been SRAM allocator consolidation work done by Russell
> and as a result the SRAM allocator API for DaVinci will
> actually change. The driver should probably just get sram
> space through platform data so that it doesn't depend on the
> platform specific sram allocation function.
Ok, care to fix up the code then?
> > Who is going to be applying these patches to the tree?
> >
> > Should this driver go through a davinci subtree because of these
> > dependancies?
>
> No, driver and platform changes can be merged separately
> if the above aspect is taken care of. Russell has been
> pushing back on merging driver patches through his tree
> unless absolutely required.
That's fine, I'll take it through my tree then, care to resolve the
above issue and resend it?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists