From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jason@lakedaemon.net (Jason Cooper)
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 13:31:30 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v8 0/9] initial suport for Alphascale ASM9260
In-Reply-To: <5455D47E.4020904@rempel-privat.de>
References: <1413888020-8790-1-git-send-email-linux@rempel-privat.de>
 <544D0786.2070401@rempel-privat.de>
 <20141102021123.GQ3698@titan.lakedaemon.net>
 <5455D47E.4020904@rempel-privat.de>
Message-ID: <20141102183130.GU3698@titan.lakedaemon.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 07:51:42AM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> Am 02.11.2014 um 03:11 schrieb Jason Cooper:
> > On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 03:39:02PM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> >> Will it be better to split this patch set?
> >>
> >> For example:
> >> part 1
> >>>   ARM: add mach-asm9260
> >>>   ARM: add lolevel debug support for asm9260
> >> part2
> >>>   ARM: irqchip: mxs: prepare driver for HW with different offsets
> >>>   ARM: irqchip: mxs: add Alpascale ASM9260 support
> >> and all other patches separately.
> >>
> >> this will reduce review time for you and give some hope for me :D
> > 
> > I honestly prefer to keep the series together.  The subject lines make

To be clear, I meant the emails being in the same thread.

> > it clear which parts I need to worry about merging.  The big thing is
> > if there are compile-time dependencies between the different subsystems.
> > It doesn't look like there are, but if so, just bring it to our
> > attention.
> 
> Ok, i'll resend updated version against latest arm-soc/for-next.git, or
> should i take other branch?

In general it's best to base against one of Linus' tags (eg v3.18-rc1)
and then rebase against something different only if asked.  That'll be
per subsystem, though.

Please don't forget to Cc the mach-mxs/ maintainers on the irqchip
changes.

thx,

Jason.