Patchwork [GIT,PULL] mxs/defconfig for 3.4

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Shawn Guo
Date Feb. 1, 2012, 3:46 p.m.
Message ID <20120201154628.GC2203@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net>
Download mbox
Permalink /patch/138951/
State New
Headers show

Pull-request

git://git.linaro.org/people/shawnguo/linux-2.6.git mxs/defconfig

Comments

Shawn Guo - Feb. 1, 2012, 3:46 p.m.
Hi Arnd, Olof,

Since we do not have mxs tree pulled into linux-next, I start trying to
push stuff to arm-soc as soon as they are ready, so they do not get held
on my side.  But that also means you guys will see more frequent requests
containing small pieces from me.  Hope that is okay.

Here is one patch on mxs_defconfig update for 3.4.  Please pull.

Thanks,
Shawn

The following changes since commit dcd6c92267155e70a94b3927bce681ce74b80d1f:

  Linux 3.3-rc1 (2012-01-19 15:04:48 -0800)

are available in the git repository at:
  git://git.linaro.org/people/shawnguo/linux-2.6.git mxs/defconfig

Fabio Estevam (1):
      ARM: mx28: Let audio support be built by default

 arch/arm/configs/mxs_defconfig |   20 +++++++++++++++++---
 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Olof Johansson - Feb. 9, 2012, 1:14 a.m.
Hi,

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Arnd, Olof,
>
> Since we do not have mxs tree pulled into linux-next, I start trying to
> push stuff to arm-soc as soon as they are ready, so they do not get held
> on my side.  But that also means you guys will see more frequent requests
> containing small pieces from me.  Hope that is okay.

Yes, perfectly fine. If you prefer, you can keep your work on a
long-lived branch instead of creating new one-off branches for every
few patches, and send repeated pull requests for that branch.

> Here is one patch on mxs_defconfig update for 3.4.  Please pull.


Pulled, thanks.


-Olof
Shawn Guo - Feb. 9, 2012, 2:15 a.m.
On 8 February 2012 17:14, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
...
> Yes, perfectly fine. If you prefer, you can keep your work on a
> long-lived branch instead of creating new one-off branches for every
> few patches, and send repeated pull requests for that branch.
>
You mean that I can collect all types of patches on a single branch
like for-arm-soc?  I'm not sure about that since the platform
maintainers are asked to send pull-requests sorted in different
branches for different type of patches.  Or I'm missing your point?

Regards,
Shawn
Olof Johansson - Feb. 9, 2012, 6:59 a.m.
Hi,

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 8 February 2012 17:14, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
> ...
>> Yes, perfectly fine. If you prefer, you can keep your work on a
>> long-lived branch instead of creating new one-off branches for every
>> few patches, and send repeated pull requests for that branch.
>>
> You mean that I can collect all types of patches on a single branch
> like for-arm-soc?  I'm not sure about that since the platform
> maintainers are asked to send pull-requests sorted in different
> branches for different type of patches.  Or I'm missing your point?

No, not just in one large branch. But you can collect patches on
specific topics into separate branches that are sent multiple times as
you add patches to it. I.e. similar to how most platform maintainers
have been collecting patches in topic branches with one pull request
done at the end, but with pull requests going in as the branch is
built up.

Does that explanation make sense? I can elaborate if it's still not quite clear.

-Olof
Shawn Guo - Feb. 9, 2012, 12:41 p.m.
On 8 February 2012 22:59, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
...
> No, not just in one large branch. But you can collect patches on
> specific topics into separate branches that are sent multiple times as
> you add patches to it. I.e. similar to how most platform maintainers
> have been collecting patches in topic branches with one pull request
> done at the end, but with pull requests going in as the branch is
> built up.
>
> Does that explanation make sense? I can elaborate if it's still not quite clear.
>
Got it, thanks for the explanation, Olof.

Regards,
Shawn