From: "Cousson, Benoit" <b-cousson@ti.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>, tony@atomide.com
Cc: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@ti.com>,
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>,
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, lrg@ti.com,
patches@linaro.org, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Device tree support for TWL regulators
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:52:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F4B8A85.7060603@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120227134112.GB3191@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Hi Mark,
On 2/27/2012 2:41 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 06:01:20PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>
>> Depending on what order Mark happens to pull them in, I am fine
>> re-sending adding support for the 2 twl6030 fixed regulators.
>
> Please can you guys come up with a single unified series for this stuff
> - I'll hold off on applying anything to allow you to do this.
The issue is that the initial TWL regulator series from Rajendra will
depend on the twl core DT support I have that depends on the irq_domain
series from Grant...
So I guess, it will be easy for us to split the regulator patches from
the DTS ones to have at least the driver changes merged by you. Then
Tony might be able to pull all the DTS in one series and thus avoid the
various merge conflict that will happen since most OMAP drivers are
hacking the same DTS files.
Does that make sense? Or do you think it will be even worst separating
the patches?
Thanks,
Benoit
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: b-cousson@ti.com (Cousson, Benoit)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 0/2] Device tree support for TWL regulators
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:52:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F4B8A85.7060603@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120227134112.GB3191@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Hi Mark,
On 2/27/2012 2:41 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 06:01:20PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>
>> Depending on what order Mark happens to pull them in, I am fine
>> re-sending adding support for the 2 twl6030 fixed regulators.
>
> Please can you guys come up with a single unified series for this stuff
> - I'll hold off on applying anything to allow you to do this.
The issue is that the initial TWL regulator series from Rajendra will
depend on the twl core DT support I have that depends on the irq_domain
series from Grant...
So I guess, it will be easy for us to split the regulator patches from
the DTS ones to have at least the driver changes merged by you. Then
Tony might be able to pull all the DTS in one series and thus avoid the
various merge conflict that will happen since most OMAP drivers are
hacking the same DTS files.
Does that make sense? Or do you think it will be even worst separating
the patches?
Thanks,
Benoit
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-27 13:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-27 10:35 [PATCH v3 0/2] Device tree support for TWL regulators Rajendra Nayak
2012-02-27 10:35 ` Rajendra Nayak
2012-02-27 10:36 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] regulator: twl: adapt twl-regulator driver to dt Rajendra Nayak
2012-02-27 10:36 ` Rajendra Nayak
2012-02-27 10:36 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] arm/dts: twl: Pass regulator data from dt Rajendra Nayak
2012-02-27 10:36 ` Rajendra Nayak
2012-02-27 12:15 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] Device tree support for TWL regulators Peter Ujfalusi
2012-02-27 12:15 ` Peter Ujfalusi
2012-02-27 12:31 ` Rajendra Nayak
2012-02-27 12:31 ` Rajendra Nayak
2012-02-27 13:41 ` Mark Brown
2012-02-27 13:41 ` Mark Brown
2012-02-27 13:52 ` Cousson, Benoit [this message]
2012-02-27 13:52 ` Cousson, Benoit
2012-02-27 14:03 ` Mark Brown
2012-02-27 14:03 ` Mark Brown
[not found] ` <20120227140356.GF3191-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org>
2012-02-27 14:21 ` Cousson, Benoit
2012-02-27 14:21 ` Cousson, Benoit
[not found] ` <4F4B9166.7020909-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>
2012-02-27 14:53 ` Mark Brown
2012-02-27 14:53 ` Mark Brown
2012-02-28 5:41 ` Rajendra Nayak
2012-02-28 5:41 ` Rajendra Nayak
2012-02-28 10:18 ` Mark Brown
2012-02-28 10:18 ` Mark Brown
2012-02-27 22:17 ` Grant Likely
2012-02-27 22:17 ` Grant Likely
[not found] ` <CACxGe6vU2dSpRrqd2y=ssgVsWuwpuvFtja9YcUAQA_ETWcwCYg-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2012-02-27 22:24 ` Cousson, Benoit
2012-02-27 22:24 ` Cousson, Benoit
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-02-23 11:35 Rajendra Nayak
2012-02-23 11:35 ` Rajendra Nayak
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F4B8A85.7060603@ti.com \
--to=b-cousson@ti.com \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lrg@ti.com \
--cc=patches@linaro.org \
--cc=peter.ujfalusi@ti.com \
--cc=rnayak@ti.com \
--cc=tony@atomide.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.