On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:49:00AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:44:52AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > I did say we should've been pushing Shawn's patch in as a minimal fix > > for 3.4... > What patch? The original one which just changed the return code that's checked for. > > Regardless of what happens for 3.4 we should keep the removal for -next, > > it's clear that we don't want the bus doing this and it's causing > > breakage for the non-ST platforms. Do I need to resend the patch to the > > patch system or will the existing copy be OK? > What I want is something that doesn't cause a regression for 3.4. Well, if the overall result is something other than removing the code in 3.5 then we'll just get further regressions down the line.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
