Message ID | 20200721131829.GA67334@black.fi.intel.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL] intel-pinctrl for 5.9-1 | expand |
Hi Andy! On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 3:18 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > ARM/orion/gpio: > - Make use of for_each_requested_gpio() > > at91: > - Make use of for_each_requested_gpio() (...) > gpio: > - xra1403: Make use of for_each_requested_gpio() > - mvebu: Make use of for_each_requested_gpio() Are these dependent on this: > gpiolib: > - Introduce for_each_requested_gpio_in_range() macro Because if they only need for_each_requested_gpio() I could just merge it to the gpio tree, since I have merged the immutable branch for that into both trees. Then I'd prefer to have one pinctrl and one gpio pull request. However if they explicitly need for_each_requested_gpio_in_range() I say I can compromise and merge it all into pinctrl. Yours, Linus Walleij
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 4:59 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 3:18 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > ARM/orion/gpio: > > - Make use of for_each_requested_gpio() > > > > at91: > > - Make use of for_each_requested_gpio() > (...) > > gpio: > > - xra1403: Make use of for_each_requested_gpio() > > - mvebu: Make use of for_each_requested_gpio() > > Are these dependent on this: > > > gpiolib: > > - Introduce for_each_requested_gpio_in_range() macro > > Because if they only need for_each_requested_gpio() > I could just merge it to the gpio tree, since I have merged > the immutable branch for that into both trees. Then I'd > prefer to have one pinctrl and one gpio pull request. > > However if they explicitly need for_each_requested_gpio_in_range() > I say I can compromise and merge it all into pinctrl. It uses usual practice, i.e. merge of immutable branches. The pin control stuff is dependent on this immutable branch (first patch). I would like to avoid rebasing and doing it differently. P.S. It should be no-op from Git perspective.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 4:06 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > It uses usual practice, i.e. merge of immutable branches. The pin > control stuff is dependent on this immutable branch (first patch). > > I would like to avoid rebasing and doing it differently. > > P.S. It should be no-op from Git perspective. Ahh I see, yeah this is the situation when the shortlog becomes quite confusing. No problem, pulled it in now! Yours, Linus Walleij