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 [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Boris Brezillon
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:18:43 -0500
Leo Li [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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