From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:16:57 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v5 0/6] spi: s3c64xx: add support for device tree In-Reply-To: References: <1342021265-11212-1-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <20120711174908.GP3938@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <0fae01cd600e$442ed160$cc8c7420$%kim@samsung.com> <20120712130234.GE3957@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Message-ID: <20120712161657.GC7256@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 07:13:37PM +0530, Thomas Abraham wrote: > On 12 July 2012 18:32, Mark Brown wrote: > > Well, simple conflicts aren't that big a deal... However, Thomas > > mentioned that in order to test this he merged the SPI tree into your > > tree so perhaps there is also a dependency on the SPI tree? If that was > > just for good practice testing then I agree that the best thing is to > > merge via your tree, otherwise we might need to think harder. > There were no dependency on Grant's spi/next branch. It was merged > just to ensure that nothing is broken. OK, great - then the Samsung tree it is. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: