lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] fixes for tidspbridge 2.6.37-rc1
    On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 11:04:18AM -0600, Guzman Lugo, Fernando wrote:
    > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
    > > On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 05:29:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
    > >> On Tuesday 09 November 2010, Felipe Contreras wrote:
    > >> > Felipe Contreras (14):
    > >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - update Kconfig to select IOMMU module"
    > >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - remove dmm custom module"
    > >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - deprecate reserve/unreserve_memory funtions"
    > >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - remove reserved memory clean up"
    > >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge: remove dw_dmmu_base from cfg_hostres struct"
    > >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - move all iommu related code to a new file"
    > >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - remove hw directory"
    > >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - fix mmufault support"
    > >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - remove custom mmu code from tiomap3430.c"
    > >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - rename bridge_brd_mem_map/unmap to a proper name"
    > >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge - move shared memory iommu maps to tiomap3430.c"
    > >> >       Revert "staging: tidspbridge: replace iommu custom for opensource implementation"
    > >>
    > >> That adds quite a lot of crap back in that was removed by Fernando earlier:
    > >>
    > >>  44 files changed, 3733 insertions(+), 847 deletions(-)
    > >>
    > >> It may have been premature to merge the patches as you say, but now that
    > >> they are in, I'd vote for giving Fernando a chance to fix up any damage
    > >> that was done in the process rather than just reverting all the useful
    > >> changes.
    > >
    > > In looking at this further, I agree.
    > >
    > > Felipe, are all of these really needing to be reverted?  How about
    > > picking out the functional changes that need to be resolved instead of
    > > just rolling back everything that has been done here.  Surely not all of
    > > these are wrong, right?
    >
    > Patches are _NOT_ wrong, missing dependencies break the bridge.
    > Without that dependencies the first patch of the set won't work and
    > all other patches have dependency on the first one, so all of them
    > need to be reverted.

    How about hand-reverting only the wrong patch, so the other work isn't
    lost? I'd much prefer that.

    thanks,

    greg k-h
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-11-09 18:29    [W:0.081 / U:31.984 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site