From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jason@lakedaemon.net (Jason Cooper) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 14:16:32 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: mvebu: Add support for NOR flash device on Armada XP-DB board In-Reply-To: <20130519091326.74a77b91@skate> References: <1368788998-4672-1-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> <1368788998-4672-2-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> <20130517165656.GE11137@titan.lakedaemon.net> <20130519091326.74a77b91@skate> Message-ID: <20130519181632.GG11137@titan.lakedaemon.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 09:13:26AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Dear Jason Cooper, > > On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:56:56 -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: > > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 08:09:58AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > > > The Armada XP Development Board (DB-78460-BP) has a NOR flash device > > > connected to the Device Bus. This commit adds the device tree node > > > to support this device. > > > > > > This SoC supports a flexible and dynamic decoding window allocation > > > scheme; but since this feature is still not implemented we need > > > to specify the window base address in the device tree node itself. > > > > > > This base address has been selected in a completely arbitrary fashion. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni > > > --- > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-xp-db.dts | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) > > > > Applied to mvebu/fixes > > Is mvebu/fixes the branch intended to be pushed to 3.10-rcX, or to > 3.11 ? > > I'm asking because you've applied both 1/2 and 2/2 on the same > mvebu/fixes branch, while 1/2 is intended for 3.10-rcX (fixing > existing DT data), and 2/2 is intended for 3.11 (adding support for a > new device in the DT). I've added it to /fixes because it implements the same fix the other patch did for the change in DT parsing. I debated asking Ezequiel to split it into two patches, one for the ranges fix, the other for the new nodes. In the end, since it isn't C code, I elected for simplicity. thx, Jason.