From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@atmel.com>,
Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>,
Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] at91: fixes for 3.7-rc7
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:25:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50ACBA36.4030101@atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121121070303.GD7615@quad.lixom.net>
On 11/21/2012 08:03 AM, Olof Johansson :
> Hi,
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:59:27AM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> Arnd, Olof,
>>
>> Just for the record, I do not want to put pressure at a such late time in
>> the 3.7-rc process. So, I just reworked that pull-request because the previous
>> one was wrong:
>> - wrong patch content (DT nodes with wrong size)
>> - not all tags in patches (Jean-Christophe and Arnd tags were missing...)
>>
>> Just to start from a sane base if I have to rebase this work for 3.8, I let you know
>> that I have updated this tag...
>>
>> The following changes since commit 641f3ce64b050961d454a0716bb6dbf528315aac:
>>
>> ARM: at91/usbh: fix overcurrent gpio setup (2012-11-16 10:46:29 +0100)
>>
>> are available in the git repository at:
>>
>> git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-fixes
>
> The new patches seem to belong in an at91/dt branch, not in a fixes one.
>
> I can pull in the previous fixes branch as an at91/fixes-non-critical for 3.8
> if you want. There's no need to rebase them for this, is there? What is the
> pinctrl dependency that you are talking about, are some of these patches needed
> as prerequisites for pinctrl changes or the other way around?
>
> Sorry if I've missed more elaborate emails on this and are asking repeat
> questions. ;)
No worries Olof, I might have been more precise in the subject of my
email: I have made up my mind and consider this material for 3.8.
As for the relation with pinctrl, we have made big modification to the
layout of some dtsi/dts there and it would make everyones' life easier
if we queue these dt/mmc changes on top of the current pinctrl tree...
Moreover, Jean-Christophe plans to add the pinctrl part of these
additions on top of the modification present in this pull-request: one
more reason to queue them in pinctrl git tree.
So, in brief: forget this pull-request (and the one that it replaces
obviously).
Thanks, bye,
--
Nicolas Ferre
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: nicolas.ferre@atmel.com (Nicolas Ferre)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [GIT PULL v2] at91: fixes for 3.7-rc7
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:25:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50ACBA36.4030101@atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121121070303.GD7615@quad.lixom.net>
On 11/21/2012 08:03 AM, Olof Johansson :
> Hi,
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:59:27AM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> Arnd, Olof,
>>
>> Just for the record, I do not want to put pressure at a such late time in
>> the 3.7-rc process. So, I just reworked that pull-request because the previous
>> one was wrong:
>> - wrong patch content (DT nodes with wrong size)
>> - not all tags in patches (Jean-Christophe and Arnd tags were missing...)
>>
>> Just to start from a sane base if I have to rebase this work for 3.8, I let you know
>> that I have updated this tag...
>>
>> The following changes since commit 641f3ce64b050961d454a0716bb6dbf528315aac:
>>
>> ARM: at91/usbh: fix overcurrent gpio setup (2012-11-16 10:46:29 +0100)
>>
>> are available in the git repository at:
>>
>> git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-fixes
>
> The new patches seem to belong in an at91/dt branch, not in a fixes one.
>
> I can pull in the previous fixes branch as an at91/fixes-non-critical for 3.8
> if you want. There's no need to rebase them for this, is there? What is the
> pinctrl dependency that you are talking about, are some of these patches needed
> as prerequisites for pinctrl changes or the other way around?
>
> Sorry if I've missed more elaborate emails on this and are asking repeat
> questions. ;)
No worries Olof, I might have been more precise in the subject of my
email: I have made up my mind and consider this material for 3.8.
As for the relation with pinctrl, we have made big modification to the
layout of some dtsi/dts there and it would make everyones' life easier
if we queue these dt/mmc changes on top of the current pinctrl tree...
Moreover, Jean-Christophe plans to add the pinctrl part of these
additions on top of the modification present in this pull-request: one
more reason to queue them in pinctrl git tree.
So, in brief: forget this pull-request (and the one that it replaces
obviously).
Thanks, bye,
--
Nicolas Ferre
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
"Linux Kernel list" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@atmel.com>,
Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>,
"Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD" <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] at91: fixes for 3.7-rc7
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:25:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50ACBA36.4030101@atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121121070303.GD7615@quad.lixom.net>
On 11/21/2012 08:03 AM, Olof Johansson :
> Hi,
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:59:27AM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> Arnd, Olof,
>>
>> Just for the record, I do not want to put pressure at a such late time in
>> the 3.7-rc process. So, I just reworked that pull-request because the previous
>> one was wrong:
>> - wrong patch content (DT nodes with wrong size)
>> - not all tags in patches (Jean-Christophe and Arnd tags were missing...)
>>
>> Just to start from a sane base if I have to rebase this work for 3.8, I let you know
>> that I have updated this tag...
>>
>> The following changes since commit 641f3ce64b050961d454a0716bb6dbf528315aac:
>>
>> ARM: at91/usbh: fix overcurrent gpio setup (2012-11-16 10:46:29 +0100)
>>
>> are available in the git repository at:
>>
>> git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-fixes
>
> The new patches seem to belong in an at91/dt branch, not in a fixes one.
>
> I can pull in the previous fixes branch as an at91/fixes-non-critical for 3.8
> if you want. There's no need to rebase them for this, is there? What is the
> pinctrl dependency that you are talking about, are some of these patches needed
> as prerequisites for pinctrl changes or the other way around?
>
> Sorry if I've missed more elaborate emails on this and are asking repeat
> questions. ;)
No worries Olof, I might have been more precise in the subject of my
email: I have made up my mind and consider this material for 3.8.
As for the relation with pinctrl, we have made big modification to the
layout of some dtsi/dts there and it would make everyones' life easier
if we queue these dt/mmc changes on top of the current pinctrl tree...
Moreover, Jean-Christophe plans to add the pinctrl part of these
additions on top of the modification present in this pull-request: one
more reason to queue them in pinctrl git tree.
So, in brief: forget this pull-request (and the one that it replaces
obviously).
Thanks, bye,
--
Nicolas Ferre
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-21 11:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-19 16:31 [GIT PULL] at91: fixes for 3.7-rc7 Nicolas Ferre
2012-11-19 16:31 ` Nicolas Ferre
2012-11-19 16:31 ` Nicolas Ferre
2012-11-19 16:52 ` Olof Johansson
2012-11-19 16:52 ` Olof Johansson
2012-11-19 17:29 ` Nicolas Ferre
2012-11-19 17:29 ` Nicolas Ferre
2012-11-19 17:29 ` Nicolas Ferre
2012-11-20 8:59 ` [GIT PULL v2] " Nicolas Ferre
2012-11-20 8:59 ` Nicolas Ferre
2012-11-20 8:59 ` Nicolas Ferre
2012-11-21 7:03 ` Olof Johansson
2012-11-21 7:03 ` Olof Johansson
2012-11-21 11:25 ` Nicolas Ferre [this message]
2012-11-21 11:25 ` Nicolas Ferre
2012-11-21 11:25 ` Nicolas Ferre
2012-11-20 18:47 ` [GIT PULL] " Linus Walleij
2012-11-20 18:47 ` Linus Walleij
2012-11-20 20:00 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2012-11-20 20:00 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
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=50ACBA36.4030101@atmel.com \
--to=nicolas.ferre@atmel.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=cjb@laptop.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ludovic.desroches@atmel.com \
--cc=olof@lixom.net \
--cc=plagnioj@jcrosoft.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.