From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:32:49 +0000 Subject: [GIT PULL] ux500 DT related fixes and platform enhancements In-Reply-To: References: <20130131115552.GG5301@gmail.com> <20130206135911.GB7519@gmail.com> <20130208083121.GG7519@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130211083249.GA3469@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, 10 Feb 2013, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Thu, 07 Feb 2013, Linus Walleij wrote: > >> > >> OK so what about I pull this branch into my ux500 git and > >> call it a devicetree branch, and then we can optionally > >> merge a few of those ARM: ux500: * patches that > >> was sent for the regulator stuff on top of that as well? > > > > There are two reasons why I don't like that idea: 1) As Olof pointed > > out, a lot of these patches aren't actually DT related, and 2) I > > really want all of the regulator stuff to stay together. Each of the > > changes in the platform code are directly dependent on the ones > > happening in the regulator driver, and visa versa. It would be best if > > they continued to be taken though Marks tree. > > I understand this and I'm fully aligned for the non-DT parts. > > But I'm worrying about a plethora or merge conflicts > under arch/arm/boot/dts/* Oh no, do as you please with these. > I already pulled some of the pinctrl device tree patches over to > my Linux-stericsson tree to avoid clashes between ARM SoC > and pinctrl. > > Rationale: I don't want arch/arm/boot/dts to become the new > boardfile-type merge-clash point. That will just invoke the > wrath of the Big Penguin. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog