On 03/04/2024 15:50, Kalle Valo wrote: > Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 3/29/2024 10:10 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> This driver's initialization functions do not perform any custom code, >>> except printing messages. Printing messages on modules >>> loading/unloading is discouraged because it pollutes the dmesg >>> regardless whether user actually has this device. Core kernel code >>> already gives tools to investigate whether module was loaded or not. >>> >>> Drop the printing messages which allows to replace open-coded >>> module_sdio_driver(). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Acked-by: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> FYI: >>> I have ongoing patchset touching few lines above this patch chunk >>> (sdio_driver) which might go via different tree. If that patchset is >>> applied via different tree, it might result in a trivial conflict, but >>> there is no dependency. They can go via separate trees (except that >>> trivial conflict). >> >> I'll let Kalle respond if he'll take this through the ath tree vs letting you >> take it through your tree > > I prefer to avoid conflicts as much as possible. In this patchset I'm > not anticipating any conflicts with wireless trees, so if we can avoid > any conflicts, please take this patchset via the other tree: > > Acked-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I'll drop this patchset from my queue. But if I should take these to > wireless trees instead just let me know. Just to clarify - only the first patch has possible conflict. The rest should be fine. Can you pick up 2-6 patches from this set? Best regards, Krzysztof
