From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:10:07 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 0/4] dw_dmac: introduce generic DMA binding for DT In-Reply-To: <20130220095818.GI23302@intel.com> References: <1360952512-971558-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <201302200950.26182.arnd@arndb.de> <20130220095818.GI23302@intel.com> Message-ID: <201302201110.07485.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wednesday 20 February 2013, Vinod Koul wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 09:50:25AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday 20 February 2013, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > Since there is still churn, would it make sense if I just revert the SPEAr13xx > > > patch (your first patch) and send a pull request to Linus. > > > Since there are no users and not much testing has been done, I think we can push > > > these to 3.10 via arm-soc/slave-dma tree. > > > > > > Gives more testing and usage will go along as well. > > > Since merge window is open, I would like my pull to go soonish and not churn the > > > tree much. > > > > Reverting the SPEAr13xx would definitely help, yes. The reason why I'd also like > > to see the second patch get merged is so that we can do the SPEAr changes in 3.10 > > without having an interdependency between the trees. I tried very hard to > > make the patch have a minimal impact on the non-DT code path to avoid regressions. > Ok, i have applied your revert patch. Will send the PULL to linus by friday. Ok, thanks. > > Maybe you can send your tree now with just the revert applied, and then send the > > other one separately next week along with any bug fixes that may have accumulated > > by then? > And then makes sense to send second PULL with fixes accumulated and the second > patch, so that 3.10 is easier for all. think we can compact() patch is second > request as well Yes, sounds good. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] dw_dmac: introduce generic DMA binding for DT Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:10:07 +0000 Message-ID: <201302201110.07485.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1360952512-971558-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <201302200950.26182.arnd@arndb.de> <20130220095818.GI23302@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130220095818.GI23302@intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Vinod Koul Cc: Dan Williams , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, Viresh Kumar , Olof Johansson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 20 February 2013, Vinod Koul wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 09:50:25AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday 20 February 2013, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > Since there is still churn, would it make sense if I just revert the SPEAr13xx > > > patch (your first patch) and send a pull request to Linus. > > > Since there are no users and not much testing has been done, I think we can push > > > these to 3.10 via arm-soc/slave-dma tree. > > > > > > Gives more testing and usage will go along as well. > > > Since merge window is open, I would like my pull to go soonish and not churn the > > > tree much. > > > > Reverting the SPEAr13xx would definitely help, yes. The reason why I'd also like > > to see the second patch get merged is so that we can do the SPEAr changes in 3.10 > > without having an interdependency between the trees. I tried very hard to > > make the patch have a minimal impact on the non-DT code path to avoid regressions. > Ok, i have applied your revert patch. Will send the PULL to linus by friday. Ok, thanks. > > Maybe you can send your tree now with just the revert applied, and then send the > > other one separately next week along with any bug fixes that may have accumulated > > by then? > And then makes sense to send second PULL with fixes accumulated and the second > patch, so that 3.10 is easier for all. think we can compact() patch is second > request as well Yes, sounds good. Arnd