From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jg1.han@samsung.com (Jingoo Han)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:52:10 +0900
Subject: [PATCH V10 0/4] PCIe support for Samsung Exynos5440 SoC
In-Reply-To: <201306211614.49434.arnd@arndb.de>
References: <003901ce6e50$03d039a0$0b70ace0$@samsung.com>
 <201306211030.47440.arnd@arndb.de>
 <20130621141144.GP31667@titan.lakedaemon.net>
 <201306211614.49434.arnd@arndb.de>
Message-ID: <007201ce7085$d2c4fed0$784efc70$@samsung.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:15 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 21 June 2013, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:30:47AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Friday 21 June 2013, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > > > I am by far not an expert on how to solve merge strategies and so on,
> > > > but to avoid conflicts at Linus's level while merging the arm-soc and
> > > > pci trees, it would be better if this Samsung PCIe driver could go
> > > > through arm-soc (with Bjorn ACK, of course), so that Arnd/Olof can
> > > > make sure the ordering is correct with regard to the of/pci changes and
> > > > the mvebu/pci driver.

Yes, right.
That is the reason why I based on 'linu-next' tree,
instead of 'PCI' -next branch.


Bjorn Helgaas,
Could you give your ACK?
Thank you.


Best regards,
Jingoo Han

> > >
> > > Yes, good point.
> > >
> > > The alternative would be that Bjorn also takes the PCI branch dependencies
> > > that are already in arm-soc into his tree. Either way works, but I agree
> > > that what you suggest would be simpler.
> >
> > Yes, that is why we did it this way.  It was my understanding based on
> > previous comments by yourself and LinusW that you both had patches
> > depending on (now called) mvebu/of_pci.  So we got it into arm-soc
> > early so those branches could depend on it.
> 
> Right. I wasn't paying enough attention for the early merges that
> Olof did.
> 
> 	Arnd