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]

Date:   Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:49:30 +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

On Friday 06 July 2018 11:09 PM, David Lechner wrote:
> 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.

Thanks. I merged commit f917ff75ac55b6d829c9d1142e83913064565d5b (top of
that branch) to my v4.19/soc branch. Please do let Stephen and Mike know
about this then when you send your stuff for v4.19.

Thanks,
Sekhar