From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: b-cousson@ti.com (Cousson, Benoit) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:24:14 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v3 0/2] Device tree support for TWL regulators In-Reply-To: References: <1330338961-31765-1-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <4F4B73C8.8070807@ti.com> <4F4B7798.6000300@ti.com> <20120227134112.GB3191@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F4B8A85.7060603@ti.com> Message-ID: <4F4C028E.2000405@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2/27/2012 11:17 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Cousson, Benoit wrote: >> Hi Mark, >> >> >> On 2/27/2012 2:41 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 06:01:20PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote: >>> >>>> Depending on what order Mark happens to pull them in, I am fine >>>> re-sending adding support for the 2 twl6030 fixed regulators. >>> >>> >>> Please can you guys come up with a single unified series for this stuff >>> - I'll hold off on applying anything to allow you to do this. >> >> >> The issue is that the initial TWL regulator series from Rajendra will depend >> on the twl core DT support I have that depends on the irq_domain series from >> Grant... > > If it depends on the irqdomain tree, then just merge that tree into > yours. That tree is stable now for exactly that reason. You can rely > on it. I've just posted a pull request [1] to Tony that will merge your series into an OMAP DT branch to be a base for further OMAP DT series. Regards, Benoit [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg65346.html