From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:14:50 -0800 Subject: [GIT PULL] ste_dma40 updates for 3.9 In-Reply-To: References: <20130114101542.GA5363@balto.lan> Message-ID: <20130115191450.GA28615@quad.lixom.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:53:05AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > This series of patches only modify the ste_dma40 driver, there are no > > corresponding changes under arch/arm that need to be coordinated or > > considered w.r.t. merge conflicts. I.e. they all seem nicely isolated > > to only the driver. > > > > So is there a specific reason for why these shouldn't just go in > > through the dmaengine tree? > > One reason would be if there are DMA bindings to device tree coming > this merge window, as I'm told, and it implicates a lot of platform code > changes on top of this as we adopt to it. > > But maybe this will be wholly confined to the DMAengine tree? Changing platform code in the driver trees is asking for conflicts at merge time and a grumpy Linus, I'd prefer to merge arch/arm/* through arm-soc in that case. Either way, this branch can be merged into dmaengine as a branch pull, and if needed we can bring it in as a dependency on arm-soc. We would need the same for the dmaengine DT bindings branch as a base. Of course, that requires that Vinod doesn't rebase his branch and keeps the merge intact. Vinod, is that compatible with your workflow? -Olof