[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <966C48A9-98F7-4B2B-BCD0-FAF3066C5794@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:46:00 +0000
From: Tao Ren <taoren@...com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
Yu Lei <mine260309@...il.com>,
OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/fttmr010: fix invalid interrupt
register access
On 10/2/18, 11:57 PM, "Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> My thought is go for (2) and do all changes in one patch :)
No problem, Linus.
One more question: looks like my first patch 4451d3f59f2a (fix set_next_event handler) is not merged back to "timers/core". Should I generate this patch on top of the first patch or on top of the current "timers/core"? Which one would be easier for you (or Daniel/Thomas)? Sorry I'm pretty new to the community..
Thanks,
Tao Ren
Powered by blists - more mailing lists