From: gregkh@linuxfoundation•org (Greg KH)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: mvebu: pass the coherency availability information at init time
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:48:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150630164826.GA4932@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <559294EF.9040906@uclinux.org>
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:09:03PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
>
>
> On 30/06/15 10:31, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:19:43AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> >>On 12/06/15 00:51, Greg KH wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 09:25:49AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> >>>>Greg, Greg,
> >>>>
> >>>>On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:04:18 +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>Why? What's wrong with taking the exact specific upstream patches
> >>>>>>instead?
> >>>>>The exact patch mentioned below ("5686a1e5aa4") will not apply.
> >>>>>Too much of the code around it has changed. This does the same
> >>>>>thing in the same away taking into account the changes around it.
> >>>>As the original author of 5686a1e5aa4 ("bus: mvebu: pass the coherency
> >>>>availability information at init time"), I can confirm that it will
> >>>>clearly not apply as is on 3.10. What Greg Ungerer is proposing here is
> >>>>a backport of 5686a1e5aa4 to 3.10.
> >>>What about 3.14-stable?
> >>As Thomas pointed out, yes. Due to file movements and other changes
> >>neither this patch (for 3.10.y) or the original commit 5686a1e5aa4
> >>apply cleanly to 3.14.y.
> >>
> >>How do you want to handle that for 3.14.y?
> >I need a backport for 3.14.y as well.
> >
> >And I need a signed-off-by: from the subsystem maintainers that this
> >backport is acceptable, as it's so different from what is in Linus's
> >tree, before I can take it.
>
> Ok, I will prepare a 3.14 port. I will send to all recipients of this mail,
> that should catch all those who need to sign off on it.
>
> I have generated a version 2 of the original 3.10 patch. No change to
> the code diffs, but it changes the commit message to include all of the
> original commit followed by a brief description of the back port. Perhaps
> this is better?
Yes, much better, thanks, I'll go queue those up later today.
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-30 16:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-11 3:19 [PATCH] ARM: mvebu: pass the coherency availability information at init time gerg at uclinux.org
2015-06-11 3:45 ` Greg KH
2015-06-11 4:04 ` Greg Ungerer
2015-06-11 7:25 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2015-06-11 14:51 ` Greg KH
2015-06-11 15:14 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2015-06-12 1:19 ` Greg Ungerer
2015-06-30 0:31 ` Greg KH
2015-06-30 13:09 ` Greg Ungerer
2015-06-30 16:48 ` Greg KH [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-06-09 1:35 gerg at uclinux.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150630164826.GA4932@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation$(echo .)org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox