From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Cousson, Benoit" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Device tree support for TWL regulators Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:52:05 +0100 Message-ID: <4F4B8A85.7060603@ti.com> References: <1330338961-31765-1-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <4F4B73C8.8070807@ti.com> <4F4B7798.6000300@ti.com> <20120227134112.GB3191@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:37342 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752201Ab2B0NwU (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:52:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20120227134112.GB3191@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown , tony@atomide.com Cc: Rajendra Nayak , Peter Ujfalusi , 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 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: b-cousson@ti.com (Cousson, Benoit) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:52:05 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v3 0/2] Device tree support for TWL regulators In-Reply-To: <20120227134112.GB3191@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1330338961-31765-1-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <4F4B73C8.8070807@ti.com> <4F4B7798.6000300@ti.com> <20120227134112.GB3191@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Message-ID: <4F4B8A85.7060603@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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