[GIT,PULL] davinci fixes for v3.2 merge window

Submitted by Sekhar Nori on Sept. 17, 2011, 11:43 a.m.

Details

Message ID B85A65D85D7EB246BE421B3FB0FBB59302575A0DD6@dbde02.ent.ti.com
State New
Headers show

Pull-request

git://gitorious.org/linux-davinci/linux-davinci.git v3.2/fixes

Commit Message

Sekhar Nori Sept. 17, 2011, 11:43 a.m.
Hi Arnd,

Please pull the following two fixes for the v3.2
merge window. They are not applicable to stable
tree and hence the stable tag has not been added.

Thanks,
Sekhar

The following changes since commit b6fd41e29dea9c6753b1843a77e50433e6123bcb:
  Linus Torvalds (1):
        Linux 3.1-rc6

are available in the git repository at:

  git://gitorious.org/linux-davinci/linux-davinci.git v3.2/fixes

Ido Yariv (1):
      ARM: davinci: Explicitly set channel controllers' default queues

Thomas Meyer (1):
      ARM: davinci: edma: use kzalloc()

 arch/arm/mach-davinci/devices-da8xx.c     |    3 +++
 arch/arm/mach-davinci/devices-tnetv107x.c |    1 +
 arch/arm/mach-davinci/dm355.c             |    1 +
 arch/arm/mach-davinci/dm644x.c            |    1 +
 arch/arm/mach-davinci/dm646x.c            |    1 +
 arch/arm/mach-davinci/dma.c               |    5 +----
 6 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Arnd Bergmann Sept. 20, 2011, 8:10 p.m.
On Saturday 17 September 2011, Nori, Sekhar wrote:
> Please pull the following two fixes for the v3.2
> merge window. They are not applicable to stable
> tree and hence the stable tag has not been added.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sekhar
> 
> The following changes since commit b6fd41e29dea9c6753b1843a77e50433e6123bcb:
>   Linus Torvalds (1):
>         Linux 3.1-rc6
> 
> are available in the git repository at:
> 
>   git://gitorious.org/linux-davinci/linux-davinci.git v3.2/fixes
> 
> Ido Yariv (1):
>       ARM: davinci: Explicitly set channel controllers' default queues
> 
> Thomas Meyer (1):
>       ARM: davinci: edma: use kzalloc()

Hi Sekhar,

Looking at the patches, they seem to be more of the cleanup category,
so I think I'd apply them to the next/cleanup branch instead of
the next/fixes branch. Does that make sense?

	Arnd
Sekhar Nori Sept. 21, 2011, 1:21 p.m.
Hi Arnd,

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 01:40:08, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> Hi Sekhar,
> 
> Looking at the patches, they seem to be more of the cleanup category,
> so I think I'd apply them to the next/cleanup branch instead of
> the next/fixes branch. Does that make sense?

Okay. Thanks for pulling them in.

Regards,
Sekhar