From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:25:45 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 00/11] ARM: at91: remove !DT support for at91rm9200 In-Reply-To: <54784209.6070003@atmel.com> References: <27354361.uIQEXGDqXb@wuerfel> <54784209.6070003@atmel.com> Message-ID: <2351041.YbSYt1FKtz@wuerfel> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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