Patchwork [GIT,PULL] Renesas ARM-based SoC: KZM-A9-GT for 3.7 #2

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Simon Horman
Date Aug. 30, 2012, 5:47 a.m.
Message ID <1346305648-25263-1-git-send-email-horms@verge.net.au>
Download mbox
Permalink /patch/180799/
State New
Headers show

Pull-request

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/horms/renesas.git kzm9g-gpio

Comments

Simon Horman - Aug. 30, 2012, 5:47 a.m.
Hi Olof, Hi Arnd,

please consider the following enhancement to the KZM-A9-GT board by
from Morimoto-san for inclusion in 3.7.

* This pull request is based on the devel branch of
  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-gpio.git
  which is based on v3.6-rc2.

  This is to satisfy compile-time dependencies.
  Please let me know if you would like this handled a different way.

* This and a previous pull request,
  "Renesas ARM-based SoC: KZM-9A-GT for 3.7", both touch board-kzm9g.c
  but I do not believe there is a conflict.

  Please let me know if you would like this handled a different way.

----------------------------------------------------------------
The following changes since commit f24a9172233cfc205ef7a999370412ab577783b1:

  gpio/mxs: adopt irq_domain support for mxs gpio driver (2012-08-23 23:49:17 +0200)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/horms/renesas.git kzm9g-gpio

for you to fetch changes up to af26b952cca1a87f31b09015fb3f7c77232036e1:

  ARM: shmobile: kzm9g: use gpio-keys instead of gpio-keys-polled (2012-08-30 13:59:31 +0900)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Kuninori Morimoto (1):
      ARM: shmobile: kzm9g: use gpio-keys instead of gpio-keys-polled

 arch/arm/configs/kzm9g_defconfig     | 2 +-
 arch/arm/mach-shmobile/board-kzm9g.c | 5 ++---
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Olof Johansson - Sept. 5, 2012, 10:44 p.m.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 02:47:27PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> Hi Olof, Hi Arnd,
> 
> please consider the following enhancement to the KZM-A9-GT board by
> from Morimoto-san for inclusion in 3.7.
> 
> * This pull request is based on the devel branch of
>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-gpio.git
>   which is based on v3.6-rc2.
> 
>   This is to satisfy compile-time dependencies.
>   Please let me know if you would like this handled a different way.

Hi,

It seems like Linus W's devel branch is not a stable one, since at least the
topmost commit you pulled in from his branch is no longer available on it. This
means we can't pull it in as a dependency in arm-soc without risking merge
conflicts, etc.

So, we can't pull in this branch with its dependency without an agreement that
Linus holds a branch stable with at least the pcf857x patch on it. Linus?


-Olof
Linus Walleij - Sept. 6, 2012, 5:58 a.m.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:

> So, we can't pull in this branch with its dependency without an agreement that
> Linus holds a branch stable with at least the pcf857x patch on it. Linus?

OMG! OK let's claim that it's stable now then, it's close enough
to the merge window.

Ironically his was caused by a Samsung commit (IIRC) which I
applied to the GPIO tree but shouldn't be there (instead to be
funneled through ARM SoC) so I had to take it out after
a week. So maybe we're not so good off with these mixtures
of "ARM SoC pulls GPIO" vs "ACK and push it all through ARM SoC"
hm, maybe it's just one of those things we have to live with...

Yours,
Linus Walleij
Simon Horman - Sept. 6, 2012, 6:18 a.m.
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 07:58:02AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
> 
> > So, we can't pull in this branch with its dependency without an agreement that
> > Linus holds a branch stable with at least the pcf857x patch on it. Linus?
> 
> OMG! OK let's claim that it's stable now then, it's close enough
> to the merge window.
> 
> Ironically his was caused by a Samsung commit (IIRC) which I
> applied to the GPIO tree but shouldn't be there (instead to be
> funneled through ARM SoC) so I had to take it out after
> a week. So maybe we're not so good off with these mixtures
> of "ARM SoC pulls GPIO" vs "ACK and push it all through ARM SoC"
> hm, maybe it's just one of those things we have to live with...

It seems to me that I should rebase the my branch and it can
then go through either the ARM SoC or GPIO tree. Either is fine by me.

As an aside, the patch does include a defconfig change.
Olof, Should that be broken out into a separate patch?
Linus Walleij - Sept. 6, 2012, 7:16 a.m.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:

> It seems to me that I should rebase the my branch and it can
> then go through either the ARM SoC or GPIO tree. Either is fine by me.

Me too...

> As an aside, the patch does include a defconfig change.
> Olof, Should that be broken out into a separate patch?

IIRC Arnd told me he actually likes when we patch defconfigs as
part of other fixes so leave it in.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
Linus Walleij - Sept. 6, 2012, 7:35 a.m.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
>
>> So, we can't pull in this branch with its dependency without an agreement that
>> Linus holds a branch stable with at least the pcf857x patch on it. Linus?
>
> OMG! OK let's claim that it's stable now then, it's close enough
> to the merge window.

Oh! And by the way, make sure you pull in the "devel" branch:

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-gpio.git devel

My "for-next" is a mixdown of fixes and devel, so the stuff that
will really go into next merge window is on devel.

Yours,
Linus Walleij