[PATCH][v3] mtd/ifc: Add support for IFC controller version 2.0

[Raghav Dogra]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leo Li [mailto:pku.leo at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2016 3:34 AM
> To: Brian Norris <computersforpeace at gmail.com>; Raghav Dogra
> <raghav.dogra at nxp.com>
> Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com>; Yang-Leo Li
> <leoyang.li at nxp.com>; Prabhakar Kushwaha
> <prabhakar.kushwaha at nxp.com>; Scott Wood <oss at buserror.net>; linux-
> mtd at lists.infradead.org; linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org>;
> Raghav Dogra <raghav at freescale.com>; Jaiprakash Singh
> <b44839 at freescale.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH][v3] mtd/ifc: Add support for IFC controller version 2.0
> 
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Brian Norris
> <computersforpeace at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Leo,
> >
> > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:44:01PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 May 2016 15:15:00 -0500
> >> Leo Li <pku.leo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Boris Brezillon
> >> > <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:18:43 -0500 Leo Li <pku.leo at gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >> It seems that the patch at
> >> > >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/557389/
> >> > >> mentioned above was not in tree for 4.7.  Can you review and
> >> > >> apply that patch too?
> >> > >
> >> > > I see it in the PR Brian sent 2 days ago [1], so it should appear
> >> > > in Linus tree soon.
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards,
> >> > >
> >> > > Boris
> >> > >
> >> > > [1]https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/9
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The pull request does have patch "mtd/ifc: Add support for IFC
> >> > controller version 2.0", but it doesn't have another patch
> >> > "driver/memory: Update dependency of IFC for
> >> > Layerscape"(https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/557389/) needed to
> >> > make the driver selectable on new hardware.
> >
> > Your patches seem to have broken threading. Or at least, in my
> > mailbox, I have that patch, but I can't easily find [PATCH 1/3] or [PATCH
> 3/3].
> > Please fix your threading next time, to help ensure things get handled
> > together.
> >
> > (It also helps when you reply to the patch you're asking about, and
> > not to a different patch.)
> >
> >> Sorry, I overlooked that part in your different emails (even though
> >> you clearly stated that you needed both patches).
> >>
> >> For my defense, I haven't followed the patch series from the
> >> beginning, and only took the patch because Brian suggested to do so
> >> (and the changes seemed ok).
> >> It would have been clearer if the different patches were part of the
> >> same series.
> >
> > +1 to the last sentence.
> >
> >> Anyway, Brian, can you take it into your tree and make it appear in
> >> -rc1 (or earlier if it's still possible)?
> >
> > Not sure how I could get it any "earlier"? It's not making -rc1 at
> > this point.
> >
> >> BTW, in the patch description you say you're only modifying a Kconfig
> >> dependency, but you're actually doing more than that: you're removing
> >> an asm header inclusion and manually include several other headers
> >> (which I guess were previously included by asm/prom.h).
> >
> > Please resend this patch with a more complete commit description; I'd
> > like it to get actual review (and time in linux-next) before it gets
> > merged, so at best, it'll wait a few -rc's. I also suspect the patch
> > isn't optimal. I believe Scott has suggested [1] that we didn't need
> > the FSL_SOC dependency on the LBC driver. I think IFC looks like a
> > similar case?

Hi Brian,

The patch being talked about does not add a FSL_SOC dependency on the IFC driver.
It uses a generic ARCH_LAYERSCAPE macro to enable IFC. This should be Ok? 

Regards,
Raghav
> 
> Thanks Brian.
> 
> Raghav, Can you do that as soon as possible?
> 
> Regards,
> Leo