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

[Brian Norris]

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?

Brian

[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2016-January/064855.html