Hi Lee,
On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 12:46 PM Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2024, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 7:08 PM Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > Commit bef64d2908e825c5 ("mmc: remove tmio_mmc driver") removed the last
> > > > user of the .set_clk_div() callback in the tmio_mmc_data structure.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > include/linux/mfd/tmio.h | 1 -
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/tmio.h b/include/linux/mfd/tmio.h
> > > > index eace8ea6cda05a3d..aca74ac1ff69e6f7 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/mfd/tmio.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/tmio.h
> > > > @@ -101,7 +101,6 @@ struct tmio_mmc_data {
> > > > unsigned int max_blk_count;
> > > > unsigned short max_segs;
> > > > void (*set_pwr)(struct platform_device *host, int state);
> > > > - void (*set_clk_div)(struct platform_device *host, int state);
> > >
> > > Any ramifications for just hoovering this up?
> >
> > I am sorry, I am not familiar with that expression.
> > Can you please elaborate?
> > Thanks!
>
> If I take _only_ this patch and leave the MMC one, will something break?
No, nothing will break.
It will just (a) make it a tad more difficult to apply the second patch
to the MMC tree, as it has a contextual dependency on the first patch,
and (b) cause a merge conflict for linux-next and Linus later...
Perhaps it would be easier to just provide an Acked-by, like you have
already done for the second patch?
Thanks!
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
