Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1621338 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-11 16:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-04-11 16:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 6 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH 01/32] mfd: exynos-lpass: Use common soc/exynos-regs-pmu.h header Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-04-11 16:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 01/32] mfd: exynos-lpass: Use common soc/exynos-regs-pmu.h header Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com> - 2017-04-11 16:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 01/32] mfd: exynos-lpass: Use common soc/exynos-regs-pmu.h header Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-04-11 18:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 01/32] mfd: exynos-lpass: Use common soc/exynos-regs-pmu.h header Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com> - 2017-04-12 07:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 01/32] mfd: exynos-lpass: Use common soc/exynos-regs-pmu.h header Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-04-12 10:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 01/32] mfd: exynos-lpass: Use common soc/exynos-regs-pmu.h header Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-04-11 16:30 +0200
| From | Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 16:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/32] mfd: exynos-lpass: Use common soc/exynos-regs-pmu.h header |
| Message-ID | <tv4Oe-85I-35@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> > > The MFD-specific header will go away because it duplicates defines from > exynos-regs-pmu.h. > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> > Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> Okay, this is confusing. I'm guessing you're sending this to Greg for inclusion into -stable? Isn't there a way to specify this intention? Also, patch 1 and 3 appear to be identical. Not even sure how that's possible. > Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com> > --- > drivers/mfd/exynos-lpass.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/exynos-lpass.c b/drivers/mfd/exynos-lpass.c > index 2e064fb8826f..8bebad92a385 100644 > --- a/drivers/mfd/exynos-lpass.c > +++ b/drivers/mfd/exynos-lpass.c > @@ -18,11 +18,11 @@ > #include <linux/io.h> > #include <linux/module.h> > #include <linux/mfd/syscon.h> > -#include <linux/mfd/syscon/exynos5-pmu.h> > #include <linux/of.h> > #include <linux/of_platform.h> > #include <linux/platform_device.h> > #include <linux/regmap.h> > +#include <linux/soc/samsung/exynos-regs-pmu.h> > #include <linux/types.h> > > /* LPASS Top register definitions */ > @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ static void exynos_lpass_enable(struct exynos_lpass *lpass) > > /* Activate related PADs from retention state */ > regmap_write(lpass->pmu, EXYNOS5433_PAD_RETENTION_AUD_OPTION, > - EXYNOS5433_PAD_INITIATE_WAKEUP_FROM_LOWPWR); > + EXYNOS_WAKEUP_FROM_LOWPWR); > > exynos_lpass_core_sw_reset(lpass, LPASS_I2S_SW_RESET); > exynos_lpass_core_sw_reset(lpass, LPASS_DMA_SW_RESET); > -- > 2.11.0 > -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 16:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/32] mfd: exynos-lpass: Use common soc/exynos-regs-pmu.h header |
| Message-ID | <tv4XU-8aE-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1621338 |
Hi, On Tuesday 11 April 2017 07:44 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> >> >> The MFD-specific header will go away because it duplicates defines from >> exynos-regs-pmu.h. >> >> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com> >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> >> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> >> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> > > > Okay, this is confusing. > > I'm guessing you're sending this to Greg for inclusion into -stable? No, it's not for stable. It's for 4.12. > > Isn't there a way to specify this intention? The pull request (cover letter) specifies this intention. -Kishon > > Also, patch 1 and 3 appear to be identical. > > Not even sure how that's possible. > >> Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com> >> --- >> drivers/mfd/exynos-lpass.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/exynos-lpass.c b/drivers/mfd/exynos-lpass.c >> index 2e064fb8826f..8bebad92a385 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mfd/exynos-lpass.c >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/exynos-lpass.c >> @@ -18,11 +18,11 @@ >> #include <linux/io.h> >> #include <linux/module.h> >> #include <linux/mfd/syscon.h> >> -#include <linux/mfd/syscon/exynos5-pmu.h> >> #include <linux/of.h> >> #include <linux/of_platform.h> >> #include <linux/platform_device.h> >> #include <linux/regmap.h> >> +#include <linux/soc/samsung/exynos-regs-pmu.h> >> #include <linux/types.h> >> >> /* LPASS Top register definitions */ >> @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ static void exynos_lpass_enable(struct exynos_lpass *lpass) >> >> /* Activate related PADs from retention state */ >> regmap_write(lpass->pmu, EXYNOS5433_PAD_RETENTION_AUD_OPTION, >> - EXYNOS5433_PAD_INITIATE_WAKEUP_FROM_LOWPWR); >> + EXYNOS_WAKEUP_FROM_LOWPWR); >> >> exynos_lpass_core_sw_reset(lpass, LPASS_I2S_SW_RESET); >> exynos_lpass_core_sw_reset(lpass, LPASS_DMA_SW_RESET); >> -- >> 2.11.0 >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 18:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tv6ZI-Y3-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1621343 |
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > Hi, > > On Tuesday 11 April 2017 07:44 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > > > >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> > >> > >> The MFD-specific header will go away because it duplicates defines from > >> exynos-regs-pmu.h. > >> > >> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> > >> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> > > > > > > Okay, this is confusing. > > > > I'm guessing you're sending this to Greg for inclusion into -stable? > > No, it's not for stable. It's for 4.12. Then I'm totally confused, since this patch has already been applied, which is obvious since I already signed it off? > > Isn't there a way to specify this intention? > > The pull request (cover letter) specifies this intention. Great! But you forgot to send it to me, doh! Why are you sending patches with a pull-request? > > Also, patch 1 and 3 appear to be identical. > > > > Not even sure how that's possible. Still have no idea how you managed to do this! > >> Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/mfd/exynos-lpass.c | 4 ++-- > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/exynos-lpass.c b/drivers/mfd/exynos-lpass.c > >> index 2e064fb8826f..8bebad92a385 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/mfd/exynos-lpass.c > >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/exynos-lpass.c > >> @@ -18,11 +18,11 @@ > >> #include <linux/io.h> > >> #include <linux/module.h> > >> #include <linux/mfd/syscon.h> > >> -#include <linux/mfd/syscon/exynos5-pmu.h> > >> #include <linux/of.h> > >> #include <linux/of_platform.h> > >> #include <linux/platform_device.h> > >> #include <linux/regmap.h> > >> +#include <linux/soc/samsung/exynos-regs-pmu.h> > >> #include <linux/types.h> > >> > >> /* LPASS Top register definitions */ > >> @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ static void exynos_lpass_enable(struct exynos_lpass *lpass) > >> > >> /* Activate related PADs from retention state */ > >> regmap_write(lpass->pmu, EXYNOS5433_PAD_RETENTION_AUD_OPTION, > >> - EXYNOS5433_PAD_INITIATE_WAKEUP_FROM_LOWPWR); > >> + EXYNOS_WAKEUP_FROM_LOWPWR); > >> > >> exynos_lpass_core_sw_reset(lpass, LPASS_I2S_SW_RESET); > >> exynos_lpass_core_sw_reset(lpass, LPASS_DMA_SW_RESET); > >> > > -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 07:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/32] mfd: exynos-lpass: Use common soc/exynos-regs-pmu.h header |
| Message-ID | <tvj0S-uP-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1621462 |
Hi, On Tuesday 11 April 2017 10:04 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Tuesday 11 April 2017 07:44 PM, Lee Jones wrote: >>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>> >>>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> >>>> >>>> The MFD-specific header will go away because it duplicates defines from >>>> exynos-regs-pmu.h. >>>> >>>> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> >>>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> >>> >>> >>> Okay, this is confusing. >>> >>> I'm guessing you're sending this to Greg for inclusion into -stable? >> >> No, it's not for stable. It's for 4.12. > > Then I'm totally confused, since this patch has already been applied, > which is obvious since I already signed it off? With your immutable branch applied to phy tree, it's going to be part of my pull request too. > >>> Isn't there a way to specify this intention? >> >> The pull request (cover letter) specifies this intention. > > Great! But you forgot to send it to me, doh! > > Why are you sending patches with a pull-request? Greg KH sometimes would like to take a look at the patches that are part of the pull request. I've been practicing it for a long time. > >>> Also, patch 1 and 3 appear to be identical. >>> >>> Not even sure how that's possible. > > Still have no idea how you managed to do this! I think first it got applied when I applied patches from local-next to next and then I did a merge of your immutable branch. Thanks Kishon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 10:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tvlm2-1MB-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1621793 |
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > On Tuesday 11 April 2017 10:04 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > >> On Tuesday 11 April 2017 07:44 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > >>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > >>> > >>>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> > >>>> > >>>> The MFD-specific header will go away because it duplicates defines from > >>>> exynos-regs-pmu.h. > >>>> > >>>> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> > >>> > >>> > >>> Okay, this is confusing. > >>> > >>> I'm guessing you're sending this to Greg for inclusion into -stable? > >> > >> No, it's not for stable. It's for 4.12. > > > > Then I'm totally confused, since this patch has already been applied, > > which is obvious since I already signed it off? > > With your immutable branch applied to phy tree, it's going to be part of my > pull request too. Okay, now I understand. > >>> Isn't there a way to specify this intention? > >> > >> The pull request (cover letter) specifies this intention. > > > > Great! But you forgot to send it to me, doh! > > > > Why are you sending patches with a pull-request? > > Greg KH sometimes would like to take a look at the patches that are part of the > pull request. I've been practicing it for a long time. It's a strange practice that I've not seen before. IMHO, it displays a lack of trust for you as Maintainer. Also, in Greg's words: "I have no idea, I dropped it and totally ignored it :)" Might be worth stopping this particular practice. If he really wants to check the patches before pulling from you he can always `git log -p <tag>` the patches from afar. > >>> Also, patch 1 and 3 appear to be identical. > >>> > >>> Not even sure how that's possible. > > > > Still have no idea how you managed to do this! > > I think first it got applied when I applied patches from local-next to next and > then I did a merge of your immutable branch. Sounds like an odd pickle to find yourself in. Might be worth reviewing the way you handle immutable branches. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 16:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tv4XU-8aE-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1621338 |
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 03:14:07PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > > > From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> > > > > The MFD-specific header will go away because it duplicates defines from > > exynos-regs-pmu.h. > > > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> > > Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> > > > Okay, this is confusing. > > I'm guessing you're sending this to Greg for inclusion into -stable? I have no idea, I dropped it and totally ignored it :) Doesn't anyone read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt anymore (or wherever the file moved to...) greg k-h
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web