On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:19:43AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> On 12/06/15 00:51, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 09:25:49AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> >> Greg, Greg,
> >>
> >> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:04:18 +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Why? What's wrong with taking the exact specific upstream patches
> >>>> instead?
> >>>
> >>> The exact patch mentioned below ("5686a1e5aa4") will not apply.
> >>> Too much of the code around it has changed. This does the same
> >>> thing in the same away taking into account the changes around it.
> >>
> >> As the original author of 5686a1e5aa4 ("bus: mvebu: pass the coherency
> >> availability information at init time"), I can confirm that it will
> >> clearly not apply as is on 3.10. What Greg Ungerer is proposing here is
> >> a backport of 5686a1e5aa4 to 3.10.
> >
> > What about 3.14-stable?
>
> As Thomas pointed out, yes. Due to file movements and other changes
> neither this patch (for 3.10.y) or the original commit 5686a1e5aa4
> apply cleanly to 3.14.y.
>
> How do you want to handle that for 3.14.y?
I need a backport for 3.14.y as well.
And I need a signed-off-by: from the subsystem maintainers that this
backport is acceptable, as it's so different from what is in Linus's
tree, before I can take it.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html