[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87d1s72bls.fsf@belgarion.home>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 21:25:35 +0100
From: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>
To: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
Jiri Kosina <trivial@...nel.org>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] media: pxa_camera: fix the buffer free path
Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de> writes:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
>
>> Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de> writes:
>>
>> > Hi Robert,
>> >
>> > Didn't you tell me, that your dmaengine patch got rejected and therefore
>> > these your patches were on hold?
>> They were reverted, and then revamped into DMA_CTRL_REUSE, upstreamed and
>> merged, as in the commit 272420214d26 ("dmaengine: Add DMA_CTRL_REUSE"). I'd
>>
>> Of course a pending fix is still underway
>> (http://www.serverphorums.com/read.php?12,1318680). But that shouldn't stop us
>> from reviewing to get ready to merge.
>>
>> I want this serie to be ready, so that as soon as Vinod merges the fix, I can
>> ping you to trigger the merge into your tree, without doing (and waiting)
>> additional review cycles.
>
> Thanks, understand now. As we discussed before, correct me if I am wrong,
> this is your hobby project. PXA270 is a legacy platform, nobody except you
> is interested in this work. I have nothing against hobby projects and I
> want to support them as much as I can, but I hope you'll understand, that
> I don't have too much free time, so I cannot handle such projects with a
> high priority. I understand your desire to process these patches ASAP,
> however, I'd like to try to minimise my work too. So, I can propose the
> following: let us wait, until your PXA dmaengine patches are _indeed_ in
> the mainline. Then you test your camera patches on top of that tree again,
> perform any eventually necessary updates and either let me know, that
> either your last version is ok and I can now review it, or submit a new
> version, that _works_ on top of then current tree.
Okay Guennadi, I retested this version on top of v4.5-rc2, still good to
go. There is a minor conflict in the includes since this submission, and I can
repost a v6 which solves it.
So please tell me how I should proceed, either repost a rebased v6 or take v5 or
anything else ...
Cheers.
--
Robert
Powered by blists - more mailing lists