[GIT PULL] at91: fixes for 3.7-rc7

[GIT PULL] at91: fixes for 3.7-rc7

[Nicolas Ferre]

Arnd, Olof,

Here is another "fixes" pull request for AT91. It enables the sd/mmc driver
for Device Tree enabled platforms. Those patches where part of a series that
was split in two for reaching upstream: the MMC part is already in Linus' tree
and this is the arm-soc part.
I have placed these patches on top of the fixes that you already have for AT91.

The following changes since commit 641f3ce64b050961d454a0716bb6dbf528315aac:

  ARM: at91/usbh: fix overcurrent gpio setup (2012-11-16 10:46:29 +0100)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-fixes

for you to fetch changes up to 83ce1c55cfb639438c2516cb05f3b8ee472023e5:

  ARM: at91/dts: add nodes for atmel hsmci controllers for atmel boards (2012-11-19 17:02:40 +0100)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Add entries for enabling the use of sd/mmc driver on AT91.
Those entries where missing for device tree use on these
platforms.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Ludovic Desroches (3):
      ARM: at91: add clocks for DT entries
      ARM: at91/dts: add nodes for atmel hsmci controllers for atmel SOCs
      ARM: at91/dts: add nodes for atmel hsmci controllers for atmel boards

 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9260.dtsi          |  9 +++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263.dtsi          | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263ek.dts         | 10 ++++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20ek_2mmc.dts    | 12 ++++++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20ek_common.dtsi |  9 +++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g25ek.dts         | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g45.dtsi          | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9m10g45ek.dts      | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9n12.dtsi          |  9 +++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9n12ek.dts         |  9 +++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x5.dtsi           | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9260.c            |  1 +
 arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263.c            |  2 ++
 arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c            |  2 ++
 arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9n12.c            |  1 +
 arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9x5.c             |  2 ++
 16 files changed, 157 insertions(+)

-- 
Nicolas Ferre

[GIT PULL] at91: fixes for 3.7-rc7

[Olof Johansson]

Hi Nicolas,

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote:
> Arnd, Olof,
>
> Here is another "fixes" pull request for AT91. It enables the sd/mmc driver
> for Device Tree enabled platforms. Those patches where part of a series that
> was split in two for reaching upstream: the MMC part is already in Linus' tree
> and this is the arm-soc part.
> I have placed these patches on top of the fixes that you already have for AT91.

What regressions do these fixes resolve?

It looks more like they are DT-enablement patches to me, and thus 3.8
material, not 3.7. I'll be happy to queue them up in next/dt though.

Thanks,

-Olof

[GIT PULL] at91: fixes for 3.7-rc7

[Nicolas Ferre]

On 11/19/2012 05:52 PM, Olof Johansson :
> Hi Nicolas,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote:
>> Arnd, Olof,
>>
>> Here is another "fixes" pull request for AT91. It enables the sd/mmc driver
>> for Device Tree enabled platforms. Those patches where part of a series that
>> was split in two for reaching upstream: the MMC part is already in Linus' tree
>> and this is the arm-soc part.
>> I have placed these patches on top of the fixes that you already have for AT91.
> 
> What regressions do these fixes resolve?
> 
> It looks more like they are DT-enablement patches to me, and thus 3.8
> material, not 3.7. I'll be happy to queue them up in next/dt though.

Hi Olof,

You are right, it does not strictly fixes a regression and we were late
for including these patches which are around since end of July...
I still sent this pull-request to enable more people to use device tree
on AT91 for the upcoming release.

If you do not take it for 3.7, maybe we will have to queue these patches
on top of our AT91 pinctrl work (on Linus Walleij side), so, you do need
to queue this one for the moment...

Best regards,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre

[GIT PULL v2] at91: fixes for 3.7-rc7

[Nicolas Ferre]

Arnd, Olof,

Just for the record, I do not want to put pressure at a such late time in
the 3.7-rc process. So, I just reworked that pull-request because the previous
one was wrong:
- wrong patch content (DT nodes with wrong size)
- not all tags in patches (Jean-Christophe and Arnd tags were missing...)

Just to start from a sane base if I have to rebase this work for 3.8, I let you know
that I have updated this tag...

The following changes since commit 641f3ce64b050961d454a0716bb6dbf528315aac:

  ARM: at91/usbh: fix overcurrent gpio setup (2012-11-16 10:46:29 +0100)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-fixes

for you to fetch changes up to 6a342d1ee6ff7d5b3e5a0665457f1772e7fe640a:

  ARM: at91/dts: add nodes for atmel hsmci controllers for atmel boards (2012-11-20 09:51:07 +0100)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Add entries for enabling the use of sd/mmc driver on AT91.
Those entries where missing for device tree use on these
platforms.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Ludovic Desroches (3):
      ARM: at91: add clocks for DT entries
      ARM: at91/dts: add nodes for atmel hsmci controllers for atmel SOCs
      ARM: at91/dts: add nodes for atmel hsmci controllers for atmel boards

 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9260.dtsi          |  9 +++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263.dtsi          | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263ek.dts         | 10 ++++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20ek_2mmc.dts    | 12 ++++++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20ek_common.dtsi |  9 +++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g25ek.dts         | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g45.dtsi          | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9m10g45ek.dts      | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9n12.dtsi          |  9 +++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9n12ek.dts         |  9 +++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x5.dtsi           | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9260.c            |  1 +
 arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263.c            |  2 ++
 arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c            |  2 ++
 arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9n12.c            |  1 +
 arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9x5.c             |  2 ++
 16 files changed, 157 insertions(+)

Bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre

[GIT PULL] at91: fixes for 3.7-rc7

[Linus Walleij]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote:

> If you do not take it for 3.7, maybe we will have to queue these patches
> on top of our AT91 pinctrl work (on Linus Walleij side), so, you do need
> to queue this one for the moment...

Tell me what the outcome is, if I should merge some stuff on top
of my pinctrl tree just send me the patches...

Yours,
Linus Walleij

[GIT PULL] at91: fixes for 3.7-rc7

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 19:47 Tue 20 Nov     , Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote:
> 
> > If you do not take it for 3.7, maybe we will have to queue these patches
> > on top of our AT91 pinctrl work (on Linus Walleij side), so, you do need
> > to queue this one for the moment...
> 
> Tell me what the outcome is, if I should merge some stuff on top
> of my pinctrl tree just send me the patches...
I send you the pull with  few patch for pinctrl

Best Regards,
J.

[GIT PULL v2] at91: fixes for 3.7-rc7

[Olof Johansson]

Hi,


On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:59:27AM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> Arnd, Olof,
> 
> Just for the record, I do not want to put pressure at a such late time in
> the 3.7-rc process. So, I just reworked that pull-request because the previous
> one was wrong:
> - wrong patch content (DT nodes with wrong size)
> - not all tags in patches (Jean-Christophe and Arnd tags were missing...)
> 
> Just to start from a sane base if I have to rebase this work for 3.8, I let you know
> that I have updated this tag...
> 
> The following changes since commit 641f3ce64b050961d454a0716bb6dbf528315aac:
> 
>   ARM: at91/usbh: fix overcurrent gpio setup (2012-11-16 10:46:29 +0100)
> 
> are available in the git repository at:
> 
>   git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-fixes

The new patches seem to belong in an at91/dt branch, not in a fixes one.

I can pull in the previous fixes branch as an at91/fixes-non-critical for 3.8
if you want. There's no need to rebase them for this, is there? What is the
pinctrl dependency that you are talking about, are some of these patches needed
as prerequisites for pinctrl changes or the other way around?

Sorry if I've missed more elaborate emails on this and are asking repeat
questions. ;)

-Olof

[GIT PULL v2] at91: fixes for 3.7-rc7

[Nicolas Ferre]

On 11/21/2012 08:03 AM, Olof Johansson :
> Hi,
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:59:27AM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> Arnd, Olof,
>>
>> Just for the record, I do not want to put pressure at a such late time in
>> the 3.7-rc process. So, I just reworked that pull-request because the previous
>> one was wrong:
>> - wrong patch content (DT nodes with wrong size)
>> - not all tags in patches (Jean-Christophe and Arnd tags were missing...)
>>
>> Just to start from a sane base if I have to rebase this work for 3.8, I let you know
>> that I have updated this tag...
>>
>> The following changes since commit 641f3ce64b050961d454a0716bb6dbf528315aac:
>>
>>   ARM: at91/usbh: fix overcurrent gpio setup (2012-11-16 10:46:29 +0100)
>>
>> are available in the git repository at:
>>
>>   git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-fixes
> 
> The new patches seem to belong in an at91/dt branch, not in a fixes one.
> 
> I can pull in the previous fixes branch as an at91/fixes-non-critical for 3.8
> if you want. There's no need to rebase them for this, is there? What is the
> pinctrl dependency that you are talking about, are some of these patches needed
> as prerequisites for pinctrl changes or the other way around?
> 
> Sorry if I've missed more elaborate emails on this and are asking repeat
> questions. ;)

No worries Olof, I might have been more precise in the subject of my
email: I have made up my mind and consider this material for 3.8.

As for the relation with pinctrl, we have made big modification to the
layout of some dtsi/dts there and it would make everyones' life easier
if we queue these dt/mmc changes on top of the current pinctrl tree...
Moreover, Jean-Christophe plans to add the pinctrl part of these
additions on top of the modification present in this pull-request: one
more reason to queue them in pinctrl git tree.

So, in brief: forget this pull-request (and the one that it replaces
obviously).

Thanks, bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre