public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: fabio.baltieri@linaro•org (Fabio Baltieri)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [GIT PULL] ste_dma40 updates for 3.9
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:36:53 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130121083653.GA8581@balto.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130120140733.GH23398@intel.com>

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 06:07:33AM -0800, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:14:50AM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:53:05AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom•net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > This series of patches only modify the ste_dma40 driver, there are no
> > > > corresponding changes under arch/arm that need to be coordinated or
> > > > considered w.r.t. merge conflicts. I.e. they all seem nicely isolated
> > > > to only the driver.
> > > >
> > > > So is there a specific reason for why these shouldn't just go in
> > > > through the dmaengine tree?
> > > 
> > > One reason would be if there are DMA bindings to device tree coming
> > > this merge window, as I'm told, and it implicates a lot of platform code
> > > changes on top of this as we adopt to it.
> > > 
> > > But maybe this will be wholly confined to the DMAengine tree?
> > 
> > Changing platform code in the driver trees is asking for conflicts at
> > merge time and a grumpy Linus, I'd prefer to merge arch/arm/* through
> > arm-soc in that case.
> > 
> > Either way, this branch can be merged into dmaengine as a branch pull,
> > and if needed we can bring it in as a dependency on arm-soc. We would
> > need the same for the dmaengine DT bindings branch as a base. Of course,
> > that requires that Vinod doesn't rebase his branch and keeps the merge
> > intact. Vinod, is that compatible with your workflow?
> Yes it is.
> 
> Is this series dependent on dmaengine dt-bindings. If so then it wont apply to
> arm tree. Btw I dont mind it getting merged to any of the trees as long as we
> keep dependecies and avoid major conflicts :)

So, would you accept my original pull-request in the dmaengine tree?

Thanks,
Fabio

-- 
Fabio Baltieri

  reply	other threads:[~2013-01-21  8:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-01-14 10:15 [GIT PULL] ste_dma40 updates for 3.9 Fabio Baltieri
2013-01-15  6:48 ` Olof Johansson
2013-01-15  8:53   ` Linus Walleij
2013-01-15 19:14     ` Olof Johansson
2013-01-20 14:07       ` Vinod Koul
2013-01-21  8:36         ` Fabio Baltieri [this message]
2013-01-15  8:55   ` Fabio Baltieri
2013-01-21 15:10     ` Vinod Koul

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20130121083653.GA8581@balto.lan \
    --to=fabio.baltieri@linaro$(echo .)org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox