From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson)
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:31:00 -0700
Subject: [PATCHv2 00/10] ARM: sunxi: Architecture cleanups and rework
In-Reply-To: <51555CCF.2090005@free-electrons.com>
References: <1364289198-11589-1-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
 <51555CCF.2090005@free-electrons.com>
Message-ID: <20130402183100.GM25867@quad.lixom.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:20:15AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> 
> Le 26/03/2013 10:13, Maxime Ripard a ?crit :
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This patchset is a serie of various cleanups and reworks in the sunxi
> > architecture to prepare a clean landing for the next Allwinner SoC, the
> > A31 (sun6i).
> > 
> > The A31 is significantly different from the previous Allwinner SoC we
> > supported, the A10 and A13, to no longer make the generic sunxi prefix
> > we used in most compatible string relevant, while it should really have
> > been sun4i in the first place.
> > 
> > This set is also the occasion to cleanup the timer and irq code by
> > switching to the recently introduced clocksource and irqchip
> > infrastructures.
> > 
> > This set depends on the UART patches I sent previously.
> 
> I was meaning to take this branch, but some of the drivers changes in it
> depends on the clock patches that Emilio sent and that are in clk-next.
> Is it ok to merge clk-next into my branch?

All of of a <subsystem>-next branch is usually asking for trouble, since it'll
cause all sorts of pain if the other maintianer is rebasing his for-next
branch.

Best is to get those patches on just a minimal topic branch (that is still
bisectable) that is shared between the trees.

Mike?


-Olof