linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] ARM: davinci: remove duplicate aemif support

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]

Message-ID: <e1222b3c-dfa4-4cb0-eebf-8e2550e9d674@ti.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Jul 2018 12:05:29 +0530
From:   Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
To:     David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] ARM: davinci: remove duplicate aemif support

Hi David,

On Monday 02 July 2018 09:02 PM, David Lechner wrote:
> On 07/02/2018 07:28 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> Hi David, Stephen,
>>
>> On Thursday 28 June 2018 03:27 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
>>>
>>> This series moves all aemif/nand users to using the ti-aemif platform
>>> driver located in drivers/memory instead of the older API located in
>>> mach-davinci.
>>>
>>> First five patches add necessary changes to the clock driver. Next
>>> seven convert the board files to using the ti-aemif driver. Last patch
>>> removes now dead code.
>>
>> How do you want to handle this series? I can apply the series and
>> provide you an immutable branch on v4.18-rc1 with the clock patches
>> applied if that can work.
> 
> Sounds good to me. But I'm new to this maintainer thing, so maybe
> there is something to consider that I haven't thought of?

I don't think there is more to it. Ultimately there should not be two
commits for the same patch. Either you can apply and share the commit to
use or I can do that as well. I am equally fine either way.

Regards,
Sekhar