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: <125d73f7-7311-866f-1e9d-d3c1f9473899@lechnology.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Jul 2018 12:39:21 -0500
From:   David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
To:     Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...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

On 07/04/2018 01:35 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> 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
> 

I've created a branch for-sekhar at https://github.com/dlech/linux.git
with the clk commits.