Patchwork [GIT,PULL] net/at91: at91_ether fixes for 3.4-rc

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Nicolas Ferre
Date April 26, 2012, 9:14 a.m.
Message ID <4F991210.8060409@atmel.com>
Download mbox
Permalink /patch/155196/
State New
Headers show

Pull-request

git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-3.4-net-fixes

Comments

Nicolas Ferre - April 26, 2012, 9:14 a.m.
Hi David,

Can you please pull those fixes for 3.4-rc? The ARM/AT91 part
of modifications is pretty small and bounded to a single SoC so
it will not mess with arm-soc git tree.

Tell me if you need other information on this signed tag...

The following changes since commit 66f75a5d028beaf67c931435fdc3e7823125730c:

  Linux 3.4-rc4 (2012-04-21 14:47:52 -0700)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-3.4-net-fixes

for you to fetch changes up to cfc991548b5b73c8038f41877da1cd0104945cf5:

  net/at91_ether: use gpio_to_irq for phy IRQ line (2012-04-26 10:22:40 +0200)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Both fixes are about at91_ether.c driver: It is only used in a single
Atmel AT91 SoC: AT91RM9200.
The removal of fixed mapping is a long standing refinement which will
convert this driver to a more typical resources management.
The gpio fix is needed now that we have moved AT91 to irqdomains.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Victor (1):
      AT91: Remove fixed mapping for AT91RM9200 ethernet

Nicolas Ferre (1):
      net/at91_ether: use gpio_to_irq for phy IRQ line

 arch/arm/mach-at91/at91rm9200.c            |   10 --
 arch/arm/mach-at91/at91rm9200_devices.c    |    4 +-
 arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/hardware.h |    1 -
 drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/at91_ether.c  |  535 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------------
 drivers/net/ethernet/cadence/at91_ether.h  |    1 +
 5 files changed, 291 insertions(+), 260 deletions(-)

Best regards,
David Miller - April 26, 2012, 9:20 a.m.
From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:14:56 +0200

> Can you please pull those fixes for 3.4-rc? The ARM/AT91 part
> of modifications is pretty small and bounded to a single SoC so
> it will not mess with arm-soc git tree.

Please post the patches themselves to netdev.

You can give me pull requests, but those go into the "[PATCH 0/N] ..."
email, it doesn't preclude you're still having to post the actual
patches.

Otherwise nobody can review your work.
Nicolas Ferre - April 26, 2012, 10:07 a.m.
On 04/26/2012 11:20 AM, David Miller :
> From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:14:56 +0200
> 
>> Can you please pull those fixes for 3.4-rc? The ARM/AT91 part
>> of modifications is pretty small and bounded to a single SoC so
>> it will not mess with arm-soc git tree.
> 
> Please post the patches themselves to netdev.
> 
> You can give me pull requests, but those go into the "[PATCH 0/N] ..."
> email, it doesn't preclude you're still having to post the actual
> patches.
> 
> Otherwise nobody can review your work.

Both patches have been posted on netdev (but independently):

First has been posted on February 13th:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg188868.html
With a question from myself a few days ago:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg196183.html
And I can find ancestors back in May 2011...

Second one has been posted on April 23rd:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg196002.html

So, should I repost both of them as patch series?

Best regards,
David Miller - April 26, 2012, 10:12 a.m.
From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:07:41 +0200

> So, should I repost both of them as patch series?

Yes, with a leading "[PATCH 0/N] " posting as I asked.
Nicolas Ferre - April 26, 2012, 10:31 a.m.
On 04/26/2012 12:12 PM, David Miller :
> From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:07:41 +0200
> 
>> So, should I repost both of them as patch series?
> 
> Yes, with a leading "[PATCH 0/N] " posting as I asked.

Ok, done!

Thanks, bye,