Message ID | 4FDF9419.2090601@antcom.de |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Hi, On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de> wrote: > Hi Arnd and Olof, > > this is the pull request for the 22 patches we discussed last week, still same > commits in the same branch (the 23rd patch was removed from the series, as > discussed on the list). > > This time, purely mach-lpc32xx specific patches. > > Please tell if sth. is missing, so I can know if I can build upon that. (I'm > already collecting new patches on top of this branch.) I'm very sorry for the slow response to this pull request. The contents of it in itself looks good, but given the amount of patches that you are building up now, I think it's time to start organizing into topic branches that fit the structure of arm-soc a bit better. In other words, it makes sense to separate out things such as dts updates in their own branch, core SoC updates in one, etc. Given that you've based other work on top of this combined branch now, and the fact that I should have gotten back to you sooner about it, I'm going to pull it in under our next/soc branch this time. But I'd like to see more topic-oriented pull requests in the future, ideally for your updates here but definitely in the branches you stage for 3.7. Let me know if you have any questions, or if there's something we should explain a bit better about how we organize the branches. > git://git.antcom.de/linux-2.6.git lpc32xx-next Pulled as lpc32xx/devel and merged into next/soc. You can still use this branch as a base for more fine-grained topic branches, we should be able to deal with those dependencies in arm-soc. Thanks, -Olof
Hi, On 01/07/12 01:29, Olof Johansson wrote: >> This time, purely mach-lpc32xx specific patches. >> >> Please tell if sth. is missing, so I can know if I can build upon that. (I'm >> already collecting new patches on top of this branch.) > > I'm very sorry for the slow response to this pull request. > > The contents of it in itself looks good, but given the amount of > patches that you are building up now, I think it's time to start > organizing into topic branches that fit the structure of arm-soc a bit > better. > > In other words, it makes sense to separate out things such as dts > updates in their own branch, core SoC updates in one, etc. > > Given that you've based other work on top of this combined branch now, > and the fact that I should have gotten back to you sooner about it, > I'm going to pull it in under our next/soc branch this time. But I'd > like to see more topic-oriented pull requests in the future, ideally > for your updates here but definitely in the branches you stage for > 3.7. I'm fine with this. Building upon the branch you just pulled, I'll separate out the further patches into topic branches. Is there a certain set of those which I should use to adjust to arm-soc structure? E.g.: lpc32xx/core lpc32xx/defconfig lpc32xx/dts ? Thanks for pointing this out! Roland
Hi, On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de> wrote: > Building upon the branch you just pulled, I'll separate out the further > patches into topic branches. Is there a certain set of those which I > should use to adjust to arm-soc structure? E.g.: > > lpc32xx/core > lpc32xx/defconfig > lpc32xx/dts > > ? > > Thanks for pointing this out! Yep, that looks good. In general, we've had the following categories in arm-soc: * non-critical-fixes * cleanup * dts updates * SoC support updates * SoC driver updates * power-management related changes * clock related changes * pinctrl related changes + other topics depending on what's going on that merge window (defconfig, maintainers, etc). Thanks! -Olof