On 9 January 2015 at 10:44, Kuninori Morimoto <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Arnd, Ulf > >> > Hmm... indeed Arnd's patch and my patch-set conflicts. >> > I have these patch / patch-set >> > 1) header cleanup for tmio >> > 2) slave_id cleanup for shdma >> > 3) add DMA feature for sh_mobile_sdhi >> > >> > 1 ) and 2) conflicts here. one idea is like this >> > 1) header cleanup for tmio >> > 2) add DMA feature for sh_mobile_sdhi >> > 3) slave_id cleanup for shdma >> > >> > 1) and 2) can be controled by Ulf with no-conflict. >> > if these are merged correctly, I can send 3) to DMAEngine ML. >> > Then, I can point the Ulf's branch as base branch. >> > >> > Arnd, Ulf what do you think ? >> > >> >> Sounds good. You could also leave out the sh_mobile_sdhi part from >> 3) patch to avoid the conflict, and add a comment in that place >> as part of 2), to say that the slave_id assignment can be removed >> once the other parts are done. That way, we know where we're at >> if we want to remove slave_id from dma_slave_config and it's still >> part of the sdhi driver. > > Thank you. > I wait Ulf's opinion >
I am happy to share an immutable branch of needed. Please post a v2 with patches for me to review/pick up for mmc. Kind regards Uffe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
