From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: vinod.koul@intel.com (Vinod Koul) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 06:07:33 -0800 Subject: [GIT PULL] ste_dma40 updates for 3.9 In-Reply-To: <20130115191450.GA28615@quad.lixom.net> References: <20130114101542.GA5363@balto.lan> <20130115191450.GA28615@quad.lixom.net> Message-ID: <20130120140733.GH23398@intel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:14:50AM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:53:05AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > > > This series of patches only modify the ste_dma40 driver, there are no > > > corresponding changes under arch/arm that need to be coordinated or > > > considered w.r.t. merge conflicts. I.e. they all seem nicely isolated > > > to only the driver. > > > > > > So is there a specific reason for why these shouldn't just go in > > > through the dmaengine tree? > > > > One reason would be if there are DMA bindings to device tree coming > > this merge window, as I'm told, and it implicates a lot of platform code > > changes on top of this as we adopt to it. > > > > But maybe this will be wholly confined to the DMAengine tree? > > Changing platform code in the driver trees is asking for conflicts at > merge time and a grumpy Linus, I'd prefer to merge arch/arm/* through > arm-soc in that case. > > Either way, this branch can be merged into dmaengine as a branch pull, > and if needed we can bring it in as a dependency on arm-soc. We would > need the same for the dmaengine DT bindings branch as a base. Of course, > that requires that Vinod doesn't rebase his branch and keeps the merge > intact. Vinod, is that compatible with your workflow? Yes it is. Is this series dependent on dmaengine dt-bindings. If so then it wont apply to arm tree. Btw I dont mind it getting merged to any of the trees as long as we keep dependecies and avoid major conflicts :) -- ~Vinod