From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:19:14 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add cros_ec changes for newer boards In-Reply-To: References: <1398185154-19404-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> <20140423123240.GA640@lee--X1> <5357E832.1000806@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: <20140428091914.GK6264@lee--X1> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org [...] > >>> Need to wait for the ARM, DT and I2C guys to review, at which point > >>> I'll be happy to take in and supply a branch for them to pull from if > >>> required. If there are no _true_ dependencies and the MFD changes can > >>> be added independently without fear of build breakages, let me know > >>> and I'll apply them separately. > >> > >> I believe there aren't direct dependencies between the patches. So, the > >> MFD patches can be applied to the MFD tree and the DT patch applied to > >> the Tegra tree. I'm simply waiting for the MFD patches to be applied > >> before applying the DT patch so that I know the DT binding definition is > >> fully accepted before applying a patch that uses it. > > > > All of the MFD patches are safe to apply and in pretty much arbitrary > > order. The strong dependencies in the chain are: > > > > * We need patch #5 (mfd: cros_ec: Sync to the latest > > cros_ec_commands.h from EC sources) before the i2c tunnel can compile. > > > > * As Stephen says, he shouldn't apply the device tree until we're > > confident that the bindings are right. However there's no strong > > dependency otherwise. > > > > * Patches #1 #2 and #3 are simply reliability fixes. Those could land > > at any point in time and will improve other users of cros_ec_spi (like > > the keyboard on tegra124-venice2). > > > > * Patch #4 can apply any time with no issues. Without it large i2c > > tunnel transfers won't work, but that's not a terrible problem (all > > normal transfers are small). > > Patch #5 (latest ec commands) can also apply at any time with no > issues, but it's needed for patch #6 (the tunnel) to compile. > > All that being said, I'd request that you merge patches #1-#5 as soon > as you can and make sure you can provide a way that Wolfram can pull > them (or at least patch #5) into his i2c tree to keep them applying > when he is ready to land #6. Very well. So if I can obtain Wolfram's Ack, I can apply the MFD changes along with patch #6 and supply him with a branch. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog