From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: matt@codeblueprint.co.uk (Matt Fleming)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:16:21 +0000
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/7] ARM/efi minor fixes + stub pre-boot compat checks
In-Reply-To: <1454601030-9093-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
References: <1454601030-9093-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <20160211161621.GM4134@codeblueprint.co.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, 04 Feb, at 04:50:23PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> I merged two EFI/ARM related series, whose v1's I sent out last week:
> 
> Changes since v1:
> - added various tags from various people
> - new patch #3 to undefine __init
> 
> @Matt: are you happy with all of this going through the arm64 tree? I don't
> think it clashes with anything else we've got queued up for v4.6 in tip/efi/core

How come this is going through the arm64 tree? Are there other patch
series that this depends on or that depend on it?

If it makes the most sense to take it through that tree, then I'm fine
with it but I'd like to hear a rationale.