From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: matt@console-pimps.org (Matt Fleming)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:47:13 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v2 00/10] arm64: UEFI support
In-Reply-To: <20140429134726.GH17007@arm.com>
References: <1398442154-19974-1-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
 <20140429102817.GE17007@arm.com>
 <20140429114356.GK26088@console-pimps.org>
 <20140429134726.GH17007@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20140429144713.GL26088@console-pimps.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, 29 Apr, at 02:47:28PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> 
> Waiting for the tip/x86/efi to be merged first is not a problem. We
> also need a stable base for testing the arm64 UEFI series, so I assume
> this series can be based onto tip/x86/efi (would such branch be rebased
> before hitting mainline?).
 
tip/x86/efi is unlikely to be rebased. Certainly with dependencies like
this there would have to be a really good reason to rebase it.

> Given that Leif's series contains both generic efi and arm64 patches,
> what's your preference for merging them? I'm happy to add my ack and
> they go via your tree (or the other way around).

I'm happy either way, though if I take them through my tree (and
subsequently through tip) you won't have to worry about the merge window
rigmarole, which is a plus.

So, eveyone happy for me to take these with Catalin's Acked-by?

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center