From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 10:02:30 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 12/19] i2c-nomadik: Register sub-devices when passed via Device Tree In-Reply-To: <20120914084141.GA2630@pengutronix.de> References: <1347016499-29354-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1347016499-29354-13-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20120912105202.GD2624@pengutronix.de> <20120914082754.GE3374@gmail.com> <20120914084141.GA2630@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20120914090228.GH3374@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > > > First, I'd like to have this patch squashed with "i2c: nomadik: Add > > > Device Tree support to the Nomadik I2C driver". I wanted to do this on > > > my own, but the patches do not apply to 3.6-rc5 (with or without > > > regulator removal patch from Linus)? > > > > I'm really not keen on squashing all my patches together. They are > > clearly have very different purposes. If you think they are closely > > related, then pull them in sequentially, but please don't squash > > all my work into a single patch for no other reason than convenience. > > I can't follow this reasoning. I never asked you to squash all patches, > only those two needed to get proper device tree support. Why would you > want to let the device being detected via DT and not scan the child > nodes immediately? Ah, sorry. That's my fault for rushing though my ridiculously bloated post- vacation inbox. I *stupidly* thought you wanted me to squash two different patches, rather than these two. As such I unreservedly retract my previous statement. Yes, please squash. > > > I can also take the I2C related changes to the devicetrees via my tree. > > > This is not uncommon. Some people prefer to do this via their soc-trees, > > > though. I don't care much since this is not really a hard dependency > > > causing build failures or merge conflicts, but just needs a little extra > > > time until the patches are all there... > > > > It would be better for all the Device Tree changes go in as a single > > patch-set. Again, I don't care where they go, so long as they go in > > together. arm-soc seems like the most generic place for them to be > > pulled into though. > > This reasoning I can follow, but how should I know you aimed for that? I > only saw a patch [3/3] in one series making the driver probable via DT > and a patch [12/19] in another series to scan the child nodes. That's > all the infos I got. Some more context would have been helpful. Is there > a branch somewhere with all the things collected? There will be. I'm currently just Ack collecting. In fact wait ... <3 mins pass> Now there is: git://git.linaro.org/people/ljones/linux-3.0-ux500.git preview-for-next -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog