On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:55:44AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 02:25:04PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> (this time reply-to-all)
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Chris Brandt <chris.brandt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Chris Brandt <chris.brandt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Fixes: 66474697923c ("ARM: dts: r7s72100: add sdhi to device tree")
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks, I have queued this up for v4.12.
> >
> > The fixes tag above indicates this is a fix for v4.10, however, when I
> > tried to apply it on top of v4.11-rc1 there was a conflict. So I think a
> > backport will be required if we want it to be considered for v4.11 and be
> > considered for and in turn v4.10-stable.
>
> That's because of commit 3d2abda02ad2d06d
> ("ARM: dts: r7s72100: update sdhi clock bindings")
>
> > This makes things a bit messy with regards to conflicts between v4.11 and
> > v4.12 and I'm inclined to pass on the backport.
>
> If you ever want to backport, you'll have two backport changes too the
> SDHI driver, too.
Is that the case if only this patch (and not 3d2abda02ad2d06d) is backported?
