From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:54500 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753372AbbF3AbG (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:31:06 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:31:05 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Greg Ungerer Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , 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: <20150630003105.GF6430@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> <20150611145129.GA3777@kroah.com> <557A33AF.9030101@uclinux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <557A33AF.9030101@uclinux.org> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:19:43AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > On 12/06/15 00:51, Greg KH wrote: > > 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? > > As Thomas pointed out, yes. Due to file movements and other changes > neither this patch (for 3.10.y) or the original commit 5686a1e5aa4 > apply cleanly to 3.14.y. > > How do you want to handle that for 3.14.y? I need a backport for 3.14.y as well. And I need a signed-off-by: from the subsystem maintainers that this backport is acceptable, as it's so different from what is in Linus's tree, before I can take it. thanks, greg k-h From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org (Greg KH) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:31:05 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: mvebu: pass the coherency availability information at init time In-Reply-To: <557A33AF.9030101@uclinux.org> References: <1433992764-12753-1-git-send-email-gerg@uclinux.org> <20150611034521.GA12809@kroah.com> <557908C2.4090302@uclinux.org> <20150611092549.2276beb8@free-electrons.com> <20150611145129.GA3777@kroah.com> <557A33AF.9030101@uclinux.org> Message-ID: <20150630003105.GF6430@kroah.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:19:43AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > On 12/06/15 00:51, Greg KH wrote: > > 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? > > As Thomas pointed out, yes. Due to file movements and other changes > neither this patch (for 3.10.y) or the original commit 5686a1e5aa4 > apply cleanly to 3.14.y. > > How do you want to handle that for 3.14.y? I need a backport for 3.14.y as well. And I need a signed-off-by: from the subsystem maintainers that this backport is acceptable, as it's so different from what is in Linus's tree, before I can take it. thanks, greg k-h