[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121029133609.GE5190@beefymiracle.amer.corp.natinst.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:36:09 -0600
From: Josh Cartwright <josh.cartwright@...com>
To: Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
Cc: "arm@...nel.org" <arm@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
John Linn <linnj@...inx.com>,
Nick Bowler <nbowler@...iptictech.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
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.
Josh
--
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