From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: f.fainelli@gmail.com (Florian Fainelli) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 21:42:58 -0800 Subject: [GIT PULL] ARM: BCM5301X: DT changes for v3.20 In-Reply-To: <54C48BA1.9080902@openwrt.org> References: <54BED7D7.80207@hauke-m.de> <20150123220111.GE20896@quad.lixom.net> <54C48BA1.9080902@openwrt.org> Message-ID: <54D99A62.6010508@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Le 24/01/2015 22:22, Florian Fainelli a ?crit : > > > Le 23/01/2015 14:01, Olof Johansson a ?crit : >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:33:59PM +0100, Hauke Mehrtens wrote: >>> Hi Olof, Hi Arnd, >>> >>> This is a pull request with some dt updates for BCM5301X for 3.20. >>> >>> The following changes since commit 97bf6af1f928216fd6c5a66e8a57bfa95a659672: >>> >>> Linux 3.19-rc1 (2014-12-20 17:08:50 -0800) >>> >>> are available in the git repository at: >>> >>> https://github.com/hauke/linux.git tags/bcm5301x-dt-2015-01-20 >>> >>> for you to fetch changes up to 5b1864b899d2b591402704dd0f6528c8661f1817: >>> >>> ARM: BCM5301X: Add DT for Buffalo WZR-900DHP (2015-01-20 23:23:25 +0100) >> >> Hi Hauke, >> >> I've merged this into next/dt now, comments below. >> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> bcm5301x-dt-2015-01-20: ARM: BCM5301X: dts updates for 3.20 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Hauke Mehrtens >> >> No signed-off-by needed in the tag -- the fact that you have signed it is >> enough. We do ask for a few words about what's in the branch though more than >> "dts updates". Something to think about going forward. >> >> Also: >> >> We had asked that broadcom platforms go in together through Florian from >> here on out, so we don't have to deal with merge requests from each and >> every one of you since there are several subplatforms. Would that be ok >> with you? > > Humm, I had asked you and Arnd a couple times if you would actually > agree in us (bcm5301x, cygnus, brcmstb and others) doing separate pull > requests, the rationale being that: > > - the previous mach-bcm maintainers had been holding some of our > development because of their lack of responsiveness, so we did not want > to end-up creating the same (potential) situation here with centralized > pull requests > > - there is little to no code sharing happening within mach-bcm, so you > would typically only have to merge the Makefile and Kconfig portions > > That said, I still have no problems sending grouped pull requests if you > prefer this model (that is sending all broadcom related pull requests > through one maintainer). I will get all the Broadcom changes routed through a single pull request model, let me know if you want that to change in the future. -- Florian