Hi, On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:51:05AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 06/12/2013 10:38 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:11:27AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> On 06/12/2013 09:06 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 02:03:03PM -0600, Stephen Warren > >>> wrote: > >>>> From: Manjunath Goudar <manjunath.goudar@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> In order to build a ULPI PHY driver as a module, this symbol > >>>> needs to be exported. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Manjunath Goudar <manjunath.goudar@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> [swarren, reworked Manjunath's patches to split them more > >>>> logically] Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> This should go straight through Greg: > >> > >> All the patches in this series build on top of each-other, so I > >> think need to be applied in the same branch. Applying this patch > >> in branch A but the others in branch B will cause the build to > >> fail in branch B if the driver is built as a module, since > >> ulpi_viewport_access_ops isn't exported, right? > >> > >> And this series is also based on top of all the Tegra driver > >> changes in your PHY branch, so I believe that is the correct > >> place to apply this. > > > > Isn't it the same thing as Greg taking these patches after applying > > my pull request ? There's way too much outside of my domain here > > without proper Acks for me to pick it up anyway. > > Yes. > > I wasn't aware that you'd sent a pull request to Greg already though. > If you have, then it's fine for Greg to apply this series after the > PHY branch is pulled. > > (I think Alan did Ack all the EHCI patches though, so either way is > probably fine...) Indeed, just saw his replies to the two patches which were missing his Acks. My bad -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
