From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring)
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:26:50 -0500
Subject: [GIT PULL 0/5] Second batch of arm-soc changes
In-Reply-To: <1332918842-13521-1-git-send-email-olof@lixom.net>
References: <1332918842-13521-1-git-send-email-olof@lixom.net>
Message-ID: <4F731FAA.5040708@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 03/28/2012 02:13 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi Linus,
> 
> Here is the second batch of arm-soc changes for this merge window. As Arnd
> mentioned with the first cover letter, most of these either had external
> dependencies that have now been pulled in, or just needed a bit more
> linux-next bake time due to getting picked up close to the 3.3 release.
> 
> 
> There are 128 non-merge patches, with a total diffstat of:
> 
>  346 files changed, 10790 insertions(+), 2792 deletions(-)
> 
> So, while there's been some good cleanups especially in the first branch,
> there's been a net addition of code:
> 
> * New SoC family support for Samsung EXYNOS5250: clock tables, driver
>   updates, etc means net gain in code.
> * Added device tree conversions. Once we start to sunset non-device tree
>   boards on the enabled platforms, we should see payback in code removal.
> * Common clock framework. As SoCs get converted over to the framework,
>   we should see more code removal from this as well.
> 
> 
> There are a handful of merge conflicts on the branches, nothing that
> should be too messy to sort out. I've described each conflict in the
> corresponding pull request, including how we've resolved them in our
> for-next branch.
> 

Why isn't lakml getting copied on emails 1-5? The same thing happened
with Arnd's pull request. Are they getting hung up for moderator approval?

Rob