[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130828073753.GC10210@lee--X1>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:37:53 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>
Cc: 'Samuel Ortiz' <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
'Chris Ball' <cjb@...top.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
'Laurent Pinchart' <laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
'Guennadi Liakhovetski' <g.liakhovetski@....de>,
'Ian Molton' <ian.molton@...labora.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mfd: asic3: Remove .set_pwr() callback
> > Since 3af9d15 "mmc: tmio-mmc: Remove .set_pwr() callback from
> > platform data", .set_pwr() callback is removed from platform data.
> > Thus, .set_pwr() is not used anymore. Also, this patch fixes
> > the following build error and warning.
>
> I made this patch based on linux-next tree.
>
> However, commit 3af9d15 "mmc: tmio-mmc: Remove .set_pwr()
> Callback from platform data" was merged to mmc-next tree.
>
> Thus, how about merging these patchset through mmc-next tree
> instead of mfd tree?
Ouch! No, I think that patch should be removed from -next and for the
remainder to be place in the correct order before re-submission. It's
probably best to split "mmc: tmio-mmc: Remove .set_pwr() Callback from
platform data" into two patches, applying the removal of void (*set_pwr)
last.
Does that sound okay to you Chris?
--
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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