From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:48:01 +0900 Subject: [Patch v6 1/4] ARM: at91: atmel-ssc: add pinctrl support In-Reply-To: <50A5A843.2060902@atmel.com> References: <1352887751-21848-1-git-send-email-voice.shen@atmel.com> <1352887751-21848-2-git-send-email-voice.shen@atmel.com> <20121116010310.GG4387@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <50A5A843.2060902@atmel.com> Message-ID: <20121116044758.GO4387@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:43:15AM +0800, Bo Shen wrote: > On 11/16/2012 9:03, Mark Brown wrote: > >This generates lots of conflicts in the pinctrl stuff in the DTS - looks > >like it was generated against -next. Can you please regenerate against > >my atmel branch with just the changes to add the pinmux information on > >the SSC nodes? Or possbily this can just be applied direct to the > >pinctrl branch (we'll get an add/add conflict with the SSC nodes though > >that should be simple to resolve, a cross merge might be helpful). > As Mark suggested, would this patch be split into 2 patches? One is > for atmel ssc add pinmux information go into ASoC tree, and the > other add ssc node into dts file go into pinctrl tree. Would this be > ok? It's more of an either/or thing but the two patches would be OK, then we can work out which to apply. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: