On 2015-01-09 23:14, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 05:19:02PM +0100, Stefan Agner wrote: >> On 2014-12-12 15:32, Greg KH wrote: >> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 02:44:06PM +0100, Stefan Agner wrote: >> >> Any thoughts on this patchset? Would have hopped that it makes it into >> >> 3.19 as those are mostly fixes. >> > >> > "mostly"? >> > >> >> Well, all of them fix a bug, but PATCH 2/4 does this by also moving DMA >> allocation to probe. I would really have to split up that patch and make >> two incremental steps (split-up of RX/TX DMA allocation to make each >> single action revert-able and move to probe). But this would lead to >> more changed lines in total. The patchset as is already somewhat tested >> since we use it in our 3.18 BSP, whereas a new set would not be tested. >> >> One could also argument, it only affects fsl_lpuart (UART in rather not >> very widespread SoC's Freescale Vybrid and LS1021a). >> >> >> > I'll get to these after 3.19-rc1 is out, but it really looks like these >> > will be for 3.20-rc1, unless you break them up into "bugfix only" type >> > patches. >> >> >> PATCH 1/4 fixes a bug which happens on a normal console rather often on >> my setup. So if you decide that patchset is for 3.20-rc1, that one would >> be nice to have in 3.19 as well... > > Please redo this patchset then, makeing it obvious that some are fixes, > and need to go for 3.19 and others are ok for 3.20. As it is, the > changelog entries do not look like anything here is for 3.19, sorry. > Ok, will create a patchset with 1 and 3 for 3.19 (since this two really lead to reproducible kernel traces), and the rest for 3.20. Do you prefer to have the patches in a single patchset (with 3 moved to 2) or should I create two patchsets? -- Stefan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html