From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: horms@verge.net.au (Simon Horman) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:18:07 +0900 Subject: [GIT PULL] Renesas ARM-based SoC: KZM-A9-GT for 3.7 #2 In-Reply-To: References: <1346305648-25263-1-git-send-email-horms@verge.net.au> <20120905224413.GC32084@quad.lixom.net> Message-ID: <20120906061807.GA3326@verge.net.au> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 07:58:02AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > So, we can't pull in this branch with its dependency without an agreement that > > Linus holds a branch stable with at least the pcf857x patch on it. Linus? > > OMG! OK let's claim that it's stable now then, it's close enough > to the merge window. > > Ironically his was caused by a Samsung commit (IIRC) which I > applied to the GPIO tree but shouldn't be there (instead to be > funneled through ARM SoC) so I had to take it out after > a week. So maybe we're not so good off with these mixtures > of "ARM SoC pulls GPIO" vs "ACK and push it all through ARM SoC" > hm, maybe it's just one of those things we have to live with... It seems to me that I should rebase the my branch and it can then go through either the ARM SoC or GPIO tree. Either is fine by me. As an aside, the patch does include a defconfig change. Olof, Should that be broken out into a separate patch?