On Thursday 08 January 2015 07:30:36 Kuninori Morimoto wrote: > > Hmm... indeed Arnd's patch and my patch-set conflicts. > I have these patch / patch-set > 1) header cleanup for tmio > 2) slave_id cleanup for shdma > 3) add DMA feature for sh_mobile_sdhi > > 1 ) and 2) conflicts here. one idea is like this > 1) header cleanup for tmio > 2) add DMA feature for sh_mobile_sdhi > 3) slave_id cleanup for shdma > > 1) and 2) can be controled by Ulf with no-conflict. > if these are merged correctly, I can send 3) to DMAEngine ML. > Then, I can point the Ulf's branch as base branch. > > Arnd, Ulf what do you think ? > Sounds good. You could also leave out the sh_mobile_sdhi part from 3) patch to avoid the conflict, and add a comment in that place as part of 2), to say that the slave_id assignment can be removed once the other parts are done. That way, we know where we're at if we want to remove slave_id from dma_slave_config and it's still part of the sdhi driver. Arnd -- 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
