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

[Leo Li]

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?

Thanks Brian.

Raghav, Can you do that as soon as possible?

Regards,
Leo