From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 00/11] ARM: at91: remove !DT support for at91rm9200
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:25:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2351041.YbSYt1FKtz@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54784209.6070003@atmel.com>
On Friday 28 November 2014 10:36:09 Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> On 27/11/2014 18:38, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 November 2014 18:12:43 Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> >> On 27/11/2014 at 17:49:50 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote :
> >>> On Thursday 27 November 2014 17:06:28 Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> >>>> This is the last series of patches that removes the non-Device-Tree board
> >>>> support for older Atmel SoCs.
> >>>> Again, for the record, it was announced here
> >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/10/293 ([ANNOUNCE] ARM: at91: removal of board
> >>>> files) two months ago.
> >>>> Several files beyond at91rm9200 are touched this time as I tried to remove the
> >>>> biggest parts that were related to !DT SoC initializations. More cleanup is
> >>>> certainly needed to remove dead code.
> >>>>
> >>>> The diffstat is also pretty big as a lot of at91rm9200 boards were remaining.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Awesome stuff!
> >>>
> >>> Two questions:
> >>>
> >>> - is anything holding this up from getting merged in 3.19?
> >>>
> >>
> >> If you think this is not too late in the cycle, I would say go ahead
> >
> > I'd say we should do it, unless there are last-minute regressions.
>
> Arnd,
>
> I am totally in favor for a merge into 3.19.
> I wanted to wait one day or two but given that the official announce had
> been made several months ago, I don't think it makes a big difference.
>
> So, what do you prefer:
>
> 1/ I wait today and send you the pull-request this evening (our time)
> 2/ I send you the pull-request at the beginning of next week but still
> can make it for 3.19?
Just send the pull request whenever you have it ready. If some bug shows
up, reply to that mail with an updated pull request.
> (BTW, in the meantime, there is a pending pull-request (at91-cleanup3)
> but it is true that you needn't pulling it in if you plan to take this
> one which will be named at91-cleanup4 and that will obviously contain
> the 3rd one).
Yes, I have a backlog of pull requests to look at, should get to that soon
today.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-28 10:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-27 16:06 [PATCH 00/11] ARM: at91: remove !DT support for at91rm9200 Nicolas Ferre
2014-11-27 16:06 ` [PATCH 01/11] ARM: at91: remove at91rm9200 legacy boards files Nicolas Ferre
2014-11-27 16:06 ` [PATCH 02/11] ARM: at91: remove at91rm9200 legacy board support Nicolas Ferre
2014-11-27 16:06 ` [PATCH 03/11] ARM: at91: switch configuration option to SOC_AT91RM9200 Nicolas Ferre
2014-11-27 16:06 ` [PATCH 04/11] ARM: at91/Kconfig: remove ARCH_AT91RM9200 option for drivers Nicolas Ferre
2014-11-27 16:06 ` [PATCH 05/11] ARM: at91: always USE_OF from now on Nicolas Ferre
2014-11-27 16:06 ` [PATCH 06/11] ARM: at91/trivial: update Kconfig comment to mention SAMA5 Nicolas Ferre
2014-11-27 16:06 ` [PATCH 07/11] ARM: at91: remove all !DT related configuration options Nicolas Ferre
2014-11-27 16:06 ` [PATCH 08/11] ARM: at91: remove clock data in at91sam9n12.c and at91sam9x5.c files Nicolas Ferre
2014-11-27 16:06 ` [PATCH 09/11] ARM: at91: remove old at91-specific clock driver Nicolas Ferre
2014-11-27 16:06 ` [PATCH 10/11] ARM: at91: remove legacy IRQ driver and related code Nicolas Ferre
2014-11-27 16:20 ` Julia Lawall
2014-11-27 16:06 ` [PATCH 11/11] ARM: at91: remove unused IRQ function declarations Nicolas Ferre
2014-11-27 16:49 ` [PATCH 00/11] ARM: at91: remove !DT support for at91rm9200 Arnd Bergmann
2014-11-27 17:12 ` Alexandre Belloni
2014-11-27 17:38 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-11-28 9:36 ` Nicolas Ferre
2014-11-28 10:25 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2014-11-28 10:48 ` Nicolas Ferre
2014-11-27 23:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-11-27 23:39 ` Boris Brezillon
2014-11-27 23:41 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-11-28 0:28 ` Alexandre Belloni
2014-11-28 8:27 ` Alexander Stein
2014-11-28 8:49 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-11-28 11:31 ` Alexandre Belloni
2014-11-28 12:06 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-11-28 11:13 ` Boris Brezillon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2351041.YbSYt1FKtz@wuerfel \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox