From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 09:47:52 -0400
Subject: [GIT PULL 1/2] ARM: Keystone SOC updates for 3.16
In-Reply-To: <537B5B57.2050202@ti.com>
References: <1399912877-29595-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
 <20140520051507.GJ18956@quad.lixom.net> <537B5B57.2050202@ti.com>
Message-ID: <537F5188.90000@ti.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Olof,

On Tuesday 20 May 2014 09:40 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 May 2014 01:15 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:41:17PM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>> Hi Arm-soc folks,
>>>
>>> Please pull below keystone SOC updates for 3.16. It merges cleanly with
>>> arm-soc 'next/soc' head. As already discussed, the $subject pull request
>>> has a depedency with DT dma-properties pull request [1] I sent last week
>>> to be pulled into arm-soc.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I didn't see a reply from Russell on that pull request yet, so I haven't
>> brought it in as a dependency in case he has comments and it needs to be
>> respun.
>>
> I pinged RMK to pull the series. After that you can pull the dependent
> pull request as well as subject series. Just for wider testing purpose,
> I have included the dma series in my next branch and it sitting in
> linux-next for more than 2 weeks now.
> 
>> If this branch is dependent on that code, then you really need to base it on
>> top of it, or else you will break bisectability. Essentially you might end up
>> in a state with bisect where only these patches are applied and not the
>> dependent ones.
>>
> I thought about that. The git objects as they exist now in pull request will
> ensure that the $subject series patches appears after the dependent series.
> I wanted to avoid SOC stuff to be mixed with the dma series. 
> 
I see RMK has merged [1] 'dt-dma-properties-for-arm' in his 'devel-stable'
and 'for-next' branch (Thanks Russell).

Can you please pull[1] and $subject into arm-soc tree now ?

Thanks !!

Regards,
Santosh
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/7/368