Re: [GIT PULL] fpga: Updates for 4.10-rc2

[Alan Tull]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 03:53:18PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 02:00:23PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote:
>> >> Hi Greg,
>> >>
>> >> Please pull these changes for FPGA.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!
>> >> Alan
>> >>
>> >> The following changes since commit e3d31bda06e43968cd215ae590eb7cda827f01e9:
>> >>
>> >>   Add linux-next specific files for 20161224 (2017-01-04 10:26:49 -0600)
>> >>
>> >> are available in the git repository at:
>> >>
>> >>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/atull/linux-fpga.git tags/fpga-for-greg-20170104
>> >>
>> >> for you to fetch changes up to 2dd088da8cce745c008fc7f8b64e1aef33eb37c2:
>> >>
>> >>   ARM: ep93xx: Register ts73xx-fpga manager driver for TS-7300 (2017-01-04 10:27:26 -0600)
>> >>
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> fpga: Updates for 4.10-rc2
>> >>
>> >>  * Add scatterlist based fpga programming
>> >>  * TS-7300 FPGA manager
>> >>  * zynq: Check for errors after completing DMA
>> >>  * fix sparse warnings in fpga-mgr and fpga-bridge
>> >
>> > These are all bugfixes or regression fixes?  Doesn't seem like adding
>> > new functionality and a new driver fits that category to me, why add
>> > them now?
>> >
>> > Sorry, I can't take this, if you resend them as patches, I can be more
>> > specific...
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> >
>> > greg k-h
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Yes, sorry, I'm still learning here.  One patch is a fix (sparse
>> errors), the rest are new functionality.
>
> Ok, let's stick to patches then, no git pull requests, it makes things
> easier that way for things to be reviewed properly.

That's cool.

All these patches were posted and reviewed on lkml and
some on linux-fpga list as well. I'm not trying to skip the
mailing list.

But I should have submitted them for the next release.
Unfortunately, I had received some confusing advice about
doing pull requests...

>
>> Would it be appropriate to separate these and send you two pull
>> requests -  the sparse error fix for 4.10 and the rest (new
>> functionality) for 4.11?
>
> why would a sparse warning fix be ok for a -rc kernel?  Is it a real
> bug?

It's better categorized as cleanup rather than a bug, so
not needed for a rc.

>
> Send patches, we can go from there please.

OK will do.  Thanks for your help and patience!

Alan

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h