[PATCH v3 4/5] mfd: regulator: max8998: voltages and GPIOs defined at platform data structure

[l.majewski@samsung.com (Lukasz Majewski)]

On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:09:49 +0100
Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 08:46 +0200, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 14:33:33 +0100
> > Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 20:43 +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> > > > Hi Lukasz,
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 02:32:26PM +0200, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>
> > > > Fine with me:
> > > > Acked-by: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Lukasz, this is not applying against the regulator next tree.
> > > Can you redo and add Mark and Samuels Acks.
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > 
> > > Liam
> > 
> > Hi Liam,
> > 
> > I've fetched the newest voltage-2.6/for-next and merge it with
> > newest mfd-2.6/for next. After that all patches are applying and
> > kernel is building without errors.
> > 
> > The problem with this patch series is that it "touches" two
> > repositories: voltage-2.6 and mfd-2.6. 
> > 
> > I'm a bit confused how such situation should be resolved, since it
> > involves two separate repositories (and two maintainers to
> > cooperate).
> > 
> 
> You should only base your patches on one tree for upstreaming and
> since this series mostly touches regulator it's best base against the
> regulator tree.
> 
> Liam

Hi,

So what is your opinion of solving this issue?

Those patches require simultaneous update of voltage-2.6 and mfd-2.6
trees. Especially changes for voltage-2.6 won't work without
modification of mfd-2.6 tree.

-- 
Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

Samsung Poland R&D Center
Platform Group