Am 2023-03-06 15:06, schrieb Rafał Miłecki:
On 2023-03-06 15:03, Michael Walle wrote:
Am 2023-03-06 14:57, schrieb Rafał Miłecki:
On 2023-03-06 14:35, Miquel Raynal wrote:
Hi Michael,
michael@xxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 14:01:34 +0100:
> Miquel Raynal (8):
> of: Fix modalias string generation
> of: Change of_device_get_modalias() main argument
> of: Create an of_device_request_module() receiving an OF node
> nvmem: core: Fix error path ordering
> nvmem: core: Handle the absence of expected layouts
> nvmem: core: Request layout modules loading
> nvmem: layouts: sl28vpd: Convert layout driver into a module
> nvmem: layouts: onie-tlv: Convert layout driver into a module
With the fixes series [1] applied:
Thanks for the series! Looks good to me. I believe both series can
live
in separate tress, any reason why we would like to avoid this? I am
keen
to apply [1] into the mtd tree rather soon.
Given past events with nvmem patches I'm against that.
Let's wait for Srinivas to collect pending patches, let them spend a
moment in linux-next maybe, ask Srinivas to send them to Greg early
if
he can. That way maybe you can merge Greg's branch (assuming he
doesn't
rebase).
Mh? None of these fixes have anything to do with nvmem (except maybe
patch
4/4). The bugs were just discovered while I was testing this series.
But
OTOH they are kind of a prerequisite for this series. So what are you
suggesting here?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you are commenting on linked mtd series.
I thought you want to take nvmem patches series over mtd tree ;) My
bad.
So was Miquel I think ;). But maybe it will make sense to provide a
stable
tag/branch to srinivas so if someone is using the nvmem-next branch it
will
work. Although I doubt there are many users of the spi-nor otp stuff.
-michael
