From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the i2c-embedded tree Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:54:02 +0000 Message-ID: <201207121554.03240.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20120710164130.f38e4d1673f925ddb13914c9@canb.auug.org.au> <20120712131231.GH2194@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:60659 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932676Ab2GLPyV (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:54:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120712131231.GH2194@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Olof Johansson , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lee Jones , Alessandro Rubini , Linus Walleij On Thursday 12 July 2012, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. > > Please check this and talk to each other ... > > I also noticed the bindings today [1]. They came in via a seperate > patch (suboptimal) which has no ack by a devicetree maintainer which I'd > really like to see here, because the bindings look suspicious to me. > They look like they mostly export register settings which is usually > questionable since we might want to abstract bindings so they can be > useful for a number of drivers. > > Arnd, since you committed the patches, can you please comment? I'd > prefer to drop this DT conversion for now, otherwise we might have to > support this possibly rushed bindings forever? LinusW, what do you > think? I've dropped the ux500/dt branch for now. and will wait for a new one to get submitted as a replacement. There were other things wrong with the submission that Lee already knows about, so I think it's better to do this the proper way now. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:54:02 +0000 Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the i2c-embedded tree In-Reply-To: <20120712131231.GH2194@pengutronix.de> References: <20120710164130.f38e4d1673f925ddb13914c9@canb.auug.org.au> <20120712131231.GH2194@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <201207121554.03240.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thursday 12 July 2012, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. > > Please check this and talk to each other ... > > I also noticed the bindings today [1]. They came in via a seperate > patch (suboptimal) which has no ack by a devicetree maintainer which I'd > really like to see here, because the bindings look suspicious to me. > They look like they mostly export register settings which is usually > questionable since we might want to abstract bindings so they can be > useful for a number of drivers. > > Arnd, since you committed the patches, can you please comment? I'd > prefer to drop this DT conversion for now, otherwise we might have to > support this possibly rushed bindings forever? LinusW, what do you > think? I've dropped the ux500/dt branch for now. and will wait for a new one to get submitted as a replacement. There were other things wrong with the submission that Lee already knows about, so I think it's better to do this the proper way now. Arnd