Hi Simon,
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:55:44AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> 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?
No, but if you backport this patch only, you'll have to handle the conflicts...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
