On 21 January 2015 at 13:12, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:27:09PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 20 January 2015 at 04:17, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Hi Ulf, >> > >> > Today's linux-next merge of the mmc-uh tree got a conflict in >> > drivers/mmc/host/sunxi-mmc.c between commit 6c09bb851e57 ("mmc: sunxi: >> > Convert MMC driver to the standard clock phase API") from the sunxi >> > tree and commit 776e24c502da ("mmc: sunxi: Removing unused code") from >> > the mmc-uh tree. >> > >> > I fixed it up (the former includes the latter change) and can carry the >> > fix as necessary (no action is required). >> >> Maxime, >> >> I can't find the sunxi tree, is it listed in MAINTAINERS? > > No, it's not, I should probably add it :) > > It is here: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mripard/linux.git/ > >> I know I have acked below patch, but that was quite a I while ago. Is >> there any reason to why I can't take it through my mmc tree at this >> point? >> "mmc: sunxi: Convert MMC driver to the standard clock phase API". > > It still is needed to preserve bisectability, which is why you acked > it in the first place. Otherwise, you would end up with a build > breakage in the clock tree, because the mmc driver would still use the > removed custom phase functions, and a failing MMC driver in your tree > because the MMC clocks would not have the phase callbacks implemented. > > It's a pretty wide window of failure, and especially for the build > breakage, I don't think it would be wise to split these patches. Okay, I am fine with you taking the patch. Kind regards Uffe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html