From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com (Alexandre Belloni)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:21:18 +0200
Subject: [GIT PULL] at91: defconfig for 4.3 #2
In-Reply-To: <20150813100938.GN30160@localhost>
References: <20150807162754.GA20169@piout.net>
 <20150813100938.GN30160@localhost>
Message-ID: <20150813112118.GA22269@piout.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 13/08/2015 at 12:09:38 +0200, Olof Johansson wrote :
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 06:27:54PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > Arnd, Olof, Kevin,
> > 
> > A little defconfig update. That will probably be all for this cycle.
> > 
> > Thanks, bye,
> > 
> > 
> > The following changes since commit eff7f41572a645bf14a96a6f844be4f1c88cd9dd:
> > 
> >   ARM: at91: at91_dt_defconfig: enable ISI and ov2640 support (2015-07-30 14:17:31 +0200)
> > 
> > are available in the git repository at:
> > 
> >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/abelloni/linux.git tags/at91-ab-defconfig2
> > 
> > for you to fetch changes up to ea7bf603fd494391acc1f42acbfc34260b965c44:
> > 
> >   ARM: at91/defconfig: at91_dt: remove ARM_AT91_ETHER (2015-08-07 12:07:50 +0200)
> 
> Nicolas had sent me one patch which you've also included here but it's not in
> the pull request ("enable ISI and ov2640 support"). That caused a conflict
> here, so to avoid having the patch in the tree twice I instead also directly
> applied your patches from this branch instead of merging.
> 
> Sorry about that, it started due to Nicolas sending the discrete patch to us.
> So it seems like we'll apply at91 defconfig updates directly this release, in
> case there are any more. No big deal I hope. :)
> 

That's not a big deal and there will most probably be all for that cycle
anyway.

However, I'm wondering how I should have done. From the PR, if you get
eff7f41572a645bf14a96a6f844be4f1c88cd9dd..tags/at91-ab-defconfig2, it
correctly excludes "enable ISI and ov2640 support" so I was thinking it
was fine.
Be cause the first patch was taken as a patch, should I have prepared a
branch without it?

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com