On 24 November 2014 at 17:24, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 24 November 2014 at 11:45, Vincent Yang > <vincent.yang.fujitsu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 2014-11-24 17:54 GMT+08:00 Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> On 21 November 2014 at 01:51, Vincent Yang >>> <vincent.yang.fujitsu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> Fujitsu have an sdhci IP which is implemented in a SoC we're >>>> adding to mainline, the most recent series for that was sent >>>> here: >>>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-November/304522.html >>>> >>>> These patches are against v3.18-rc5 mainline and tested on >>>> v3.18-rc5 integration tree. >>>> >>>> We welcome any comment and advice about how to make any >>>> improvements or better align them with upstream. >>> >>> Apparently, there's a dependency between this patchset and the upper >>> one you refereed to. That's a problem. >> >> This patchset does not require anything from the upper one I refereed to. > > No, but the upper depends on this patchset. > > Why can't you send the mmc patches separately in one patchset? That's > would be easier to handle and review. > To be clear, the arch patchset introduces support for a new Fujitsu's platform and has a sdhci controller driver named sdhci_f_sdh30.c which will use 'general' improvements introduced by this patchset. I would think the controller driver has more dependency on ARCH than this patchset. IOW, sdhci_f_sdh30.c can't get upstream without arch patches but this patchset can without the sdhci_f_sdh30.c driver. Is that not so? Thanks Jassi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
