On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 02:53:08PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 02:51:23PM +0200, Paul Cercueil wrote: > > > > > > Le mar. 28 juil. 2020 à 14:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit > > : > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 01:37:02PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 01:19:35PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 01:12:11PM +0200, Paul Cercueil wrote: > > > > > > Hi Krzysztof, > > > > > > > > > > > > Le mar. 28 juil. 2020 à 12:45, Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > > <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit > > > > > > : > > > > > > > The CONFIG_JZ4780_NEMC was previously a default on MIPS but > > > > now it has > > > > > > > to be enabled manually. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you should swap the two so that there are no problems > > > > when > > > > > > bisecting. > > > > > > > > > > Good point. I was thinking that it will go via some of MIPS trees > > > > and > > > > > the patch #1 will just wait a cycle. However with acks, I can > > > > take it > > > > > through drivers/memory tree. > > > > > > > > I've acked the patch. > > > > > > > > Thomas. > > > > > > Thanks but now I noticed that one of changed configs > > > (arch/mips/configs/rs90_defconfig) is only in MIPS tree. > > > > > > I think it is easier then to take the patch #2 (configs) via MIPS and > > > wait with #1 for the next cycle or also take it via MIPS if it applies > > > cleanly. > > > > Why not take them both in the MIPS tree then? Would that conflict with > > changes in your tree? > > Exactly (last part of my sentence). There should be no conflicts. I've applied both patches to mips-next. Thomas. -- Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
