From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: fabio.baltieri@linaro.org (Fabio Baltieri) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:36:53 +0100 Subject: [GIT PULL] ste_dma40 updates for 3.9 In-Reply-To: <20130120140733.GH23398@intel.com> References: <20130114101542.GA5363@balto.lan> <20130115191450.GA28615@quad.lixom.net> <20130120140733.GH23398@intel.com> Message-ID: <20130121083653.GA8581@balto.lan> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 06:07:33AM -0800, Vinod Koul wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:14:50AM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: > > 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? > Yes it is. > > Is this series dependent on dmaengine dt-bindings. If so then it wont apply to > arm tree. Btw I dont mind it getting merged to any of the trees as long as we > keep dependecies and avoid major conflicts :) So, would you accept my original pull-request in the dmaengine tree? Thanks, Fabio -- Fabio Baltieri