On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 10:58 +0100, Daniel Mack wrote: > On 12/14/2013 08:34 PM, Sergei Ianovich wrote: > > On Sat, 2013-12-14 at 20:06 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > >> The patch looks ok in case we are merging your patches for 3.14 > >> and Daniel's patches later than that. If they end up in the > >> same merge window however, we'd have to be care to resolve > >> the obvious conflict in a proper way. > > > > The most recently published Daniel's patch (Aug 2013) wraps > > IORESOURCE_DMA handling on DT presence in a similar way, > > Erm, no it doesn't. My patch uses dma_request_slave_channel_compat() in > DT case, and that works fine with the current version of pdma, and > there's no need to read the "dmas" properties directly. > > If you want to provide a way to simply denote the dma channel numbers, > without looking at the actual phandle, then yes, we could merge this > patch first, but it would be effectively reverted a proper implementation. Daniel is right. His patch doesn't need to read "dmas" directly. So my patch won't need to change drivers/mmc/host/pxamci.c at all, if it is applied after Daniel's one. What are we going to do in this context? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
