[PATCH 6/8 v2] arm: orion5x: Add DT-based support for Netgear WNR854T

[arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)]

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:16:28 PM CEST Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> Hi Jamie,
>  
>  On mar., sept. 13 2016, Jamie Lentin <jm@lentin.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > On 2016-09-13 13:36, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:10:41AM +0100, Jamie Lentin wrote:
> >>> On 2016-09-12 23:03, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >>> >>Maybe we can instead leave out the PCI support from the new
> >>> >>file for now and not delete the legacy board file?
> >>>
> >>> This seems a reasonable compromise. The PCI card the router comes
> >>> with isn't supported by mwl8k mainline anyway (There's STA-only
> >>> firmware that can be extracted from a windows driver and PCI IDs
> >>> added, but stats reporting uses a different format), so it's not a
> >>> huge loss, although many did replace the card with something
> >>> Atheros-based.
> >>
> >> O.K. So dropping the PCI code gets us going forward.
> >
> > Is an arch/arm/mach-mvebu/orion5x.c also required? Or is continuing to
> > use arch/arm/mach-orion5x/board-dt.c until everything has been
> > converted the favoured approach?
> >
> >> Have we missed the merge window?
> >
> > I got the impression Gregory Clement had merged them? If not a good
> > portion of this patchset is uncontroversial generic orion5x stuff,
> > it'd be nice to get those in even if none of the router-specific stuff
> > doesn't make it.
> 
> I applied on mvebu/for-next in order to find any merge conflict. It
> seems ok on this side. However, I didn't make the pull request to
> arm-soc with these patches so I fear it is too late.
> 
> Arnd would you agree to accept a new pull request?

Yes, please just send it. We are a bit backlogged on pull requests,
but because you got all the other pull requests to us early, you can
always have a couple of late changes on top that we would normally
pull.

	Arnd