On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 10:12:40PM +0400, Antony Pavlov wrote: > On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 18:52:46 +0200 > Michel Stam <michel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hello Antony, > > > > Sorry to hear that- the patch was not meant to add new functionality, merely preserve the status quo in master. > > Quite the contrary! > > Your patchseries introduces new functionality, it adds additional io space. > > In barebox maillist all new functionality patches are assumed to be 'next' branch patches. > > Only critical bugfixes and trivial changes can go to the 'master' branch directly. > > > To explain; add_ns16550_device() assumes that all ns16550 chips are mapped into memory. This is not so on the x86 platform. Previously, because no io-mapped resources were available, x86 created a "memory" device with custom IO routines. I rewrote this to use IORESOURCE_IO instead, but to do this, the invocation of the add_ns16550_device() needed to specify the resource type. The patch which conflicts with your patch can be undone as far as I'm concerned; I wasn't adding anything new to the mips/mach-xburst platform. I can redo the patch, leaving the file targeted by your patch unchanged if you like? > > IMHO you have to rebase your patches over the 'next' branch. No, please base your patches on master. I'll resolve the merge conflicts if necessary while merging the different for-next branches. Should there be non-trivial conflicts it may happen that I explicitly ask you to base your work on -next. Right now the -next branch is empty, so this doesn't make a difference at the moment. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
