From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jason@lakedaemon.net (Jason Cooper) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:52:08 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 0/4] Dove pinctrl fixes and DT enabling In-Reply-To: References: <1353317996-20841-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <50ACAAF5.2030002@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121121155208.GF22106@titan.lakedaemon.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Linus, On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:45:42PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > > On 11/21/2012 10:59 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > >>> This patch relies on a patch set for mvebu pinctrl taken through > >>> Linus' pinctrl branch. As there is no other platform than Dove > >>> involved, I suggest to take it though Jason's tree to avoid any > >>> further conflicts. > >> > >> Sounds like a plan. So you have some commit history pulled > >> in from the pinctrl tree in the MVEBU tree? > > > > I am referring to patches for a pinctrl/mvebu subfolder. IIRC Thomas > > posted that patch a while ago. Jason is currently sorting things out > > for mvebu pull requests. I guess both can comment on your question, > > as I don't fully understand it. > > So what I mean is that the patches creating pinctrl/mvebu is in the > pinctrl tree, so if patches in the MVEBU tree depend on these, > then it must have pulled in a branch from pinctrl or applied the > same patches in that tree too (which is OK *sometimes*). Yes, Thomas and Gregory informed me of the pinctrl dependency and said they were using for-next from the pinctrl tree. I've used that branch to merge and build successfully. Is that ok in practice or is there a more specific branch I should pull in as a dependency? thx, Jason.