On 7/25/19 9:53 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 7/25/19 9:38 AM, Joakim Zhang wrote:
>> Kindly pinging...
>>
>> After you git pull request for linux-can-next-for-5.4-20190724, some patches are missing from linux-can-next/testing.
>> can: flexcan: flexcan_mailbox_read() make use of flexcan_write64() to mark the mailbox as read
>> can: flexcan: flexcan_irq(): add support for TX mailbox in iflag1
>> can: flexcan: flexcan_read_reg_iflag_rx(): optimize reading
>> can: flexcan: introduce struct flexcan_priv::tx_mask and make use of it
>> can: flexcan: convert struct flexcan_priv::rx_mask{1,2} to rx_mask
>> can: flexcan: remove TX mailbox bit from struct flexcan_priv::rx_mask{1,2}
>> can: flexcan: rename struct flexcan_priv::reg_imask{1,2}_default to rx_mask{1,2}
>> can: flexcan: flexcan_irq(): rename variable reg_iflag -> reg_iflag_rx
>> can: flexcan: rename macro FLEXCAN_IFLAG_MB() -> FLEXCAN_IFLAG2_MB()
>>
>> You can refer to below link for the reason of adding above patches:
>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-can/msg00777.html
>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-can/msg01150.html
>>
>> Are you prepared to add back these patches as they are necessary for
>> Flexcan CAN FD? And this Flexcan CAN FD patch set is based on these
>> patches.
>
> Yes, these patches will be added back.
I've cleaned up the first patch a bit, and pushed everything to the
testing branch. Can you give it a test.
regards,
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
