From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:56:07 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v10 5/7] arm: add basic support for Mediatek MT6589 boards In-Reply-To: <127793649.dTvqVjg5LM@diego> References: <1404745988-32558-1-git-send-email-matthias.bgg@gmail.com> <1404745988-32558-6-git-send-email-matthias.bgg@gmail.com> <53C8ED0B.5080802@linaro.org> <127793649.dTvqVjg5LM@diego> Message-ID: <53C96DC7.10203@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 07/18/2014 12:47 PM, Heiko St?bner wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Am Freitag, 18. Juli 2014, 11:46:51 schrieb Daniel Lezcano: >> On 07/07/2014 05:13 PM, Matthias Brugger wrote: >>> This adds a generic devicetree board file and a dtsi for boards >>> based on MT6589 SoCs from Mediatek. >>> >>> Apart from the generic parts (gic, clocks) the only component >>> currently supported are the timers. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Brugger >>> -- >> >> I will take this patchset through my tree but this patch touches an area >> I am not handling. >> >> Olof, Arnd, do you mind to ack this patch ? > > wouldn't it be easier to just take patches 1,2,3,4 through your tree and let > patches 5,6,7 go through arm-soc? > > There is no compile-time dependency between the two parts, so they will come > together nicely in linux-next and during the merge-window. > > > Also in [0] Olof wrote: > > ---------- > Traditionally we usually take the DT changes through arm-soc, but as > long as we share the branch we might be ok. We tend to stick them in > different branches in our tree though, so rockchip will be a little > mis-sorted this release. Not a big deal, and we can deal with it. > ----------- > > So I'd assume splitting the patchset this way might be a nice solution? > > > Heiko > > > [0] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg347053.html Indeed. Olof, Arnd ? Will you take the patches 5-6-7 ? -- Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog