From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kvalo@codeaurora.org (Kalle Valo) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:00:47 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v6 2/6] wl12xx: use frequency instead of enumerations for pdata clocks In-Reply-To: <20150316151554.GO5264@atomide.com> (Tony Lindgren's message of "Mon, 16 Mar 2015 08:15:55 -0700") References: <1426162154-8716-1-git-send-email-eliad@wizery.com> <20150313150047.GI5264@atomide.com> <3103538.jZ037SODdT@wuerfel> <87lhixphag.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <20150316151554.GO5264@atomide.com> Message-ID: <87siczg44w.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Tony Lindgren writes: >> I prefer these going through the omap tree. Like Eliad said, >> drivers/net/wireless/ti does not get that many changes nowadays so the >> chances of this patchset conflicting with something is very small. > > OK great. In that case no need to rearrange the patches, I can > apply them into an immutable branch once the pending issues have > been fixed if Kalle acks them. > > To avoid merge conflicts that branch is easiest done against > v4.0-rc4. Kalle and Arnd, does that work for you guys? > > I can also base it on 5b7610f23562 ("ARM: OMAP2+: Fix wl12xx on > dm3730-evm with mainline u-boot") that's on top of -rc2 plus few > other fixes now merged to -rc4 mainline if we need a branch based > on an earlier tag. Sorry, it seems I forgot to answer this one: Either baseline is good for me, I can't think of any problems with either one. But please do remember that I'm a new maintainer, I might very well miss something ;) -- Kalle Valo