From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:43893 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753814AbbFKOva (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:51:30 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:51:29 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Thomas Petazzoni Cc: Greg Ungerer , stable@vger.kernel.org, gregory.clement@free-electrons.com, jason@lakedaemon.net, andrew@lunn.ch, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: mvebu: pass the coherency availability information at init time Message-ID: <20150611145129.GA3777@kroah.com> References: <1433992764-12753-1-git-send-email-gerg@uclinux.org> <20150611034521.GA12809@kroah.com> <557908C2.4090302@uclinux.org> <20150611092549.2276beb8@free-electrons.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150611092549.2276beb8@free-electrons.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 09:25:49AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Greg, Greg, > > On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:04:18 +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > > > > Why? What's wrong with taking the exact specific upstream patches > > > instead? > > > > The exact patch mentioned below ("5686a1e5aa4") will not apply. > > Too much of the code around it has changed. This does the same > > thing in the same away taking into account the changes around it. > > As the original author of 5686a1e5aa4 ("bus: mvebu: pass the coherency > availability information at init time"), I can confirm that it will > clearly not apply as is on 3.10. What Greg Ungerer is proposing here is > a backport of 5686a1e5aa4 to 3.10. What about 3.14-stable? And if this is just a simple backport, that should have been stated here. thanks, greg k-h From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org (Greg KH) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:51:29 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: mvebu: pass the coherency availability information at init time In-Reply-To: <20150611092549.2276beb8@free-electrons.com> References: <1433992764-12753-1-git-send-email-gerg@uclinux.org> <20150611034521.GA12809@kroah.com> <557908C2.4090302@uclinux.org> <20150611092549.2276beb8@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20150611145129.GA3777@kroah.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 09:25:49AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Greg, Greg, > > On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:04:18 +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > > > > Why? What's wrong with taking the exact specific upstream patches > > > instead? > > > > The exact patch mentioned below ("5686a1e5aa4") will not apply. > > Too much of the code around it has changed. This does the same > > thing in the same away taking into account the changes around it. > > As the original author of 5686a1e5aa4 ("bus: mvebu: pass the coherency > availability information at init time"), I can confirm that it will > clearly not apply as is on 3.10. What Greg Ungerer is proposing here is > a backport of 5686a1e5aa4 to 3.10. What about 3.14-stable? And if this is just a simple backport, that should have been stated here. thanks, greg k-h