From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Iles Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add device tree based initialisation for VIC Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:20:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20110725222041.GA3001@gallagher> References: <1311610200-12408-1-git-send-email-jamie@jamieiles.com> <20110725195423.GA26735@ponder.secretlab.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110725195423.GA26735@ponder.secretlab.ca> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Grant Likely Cc: Jamie Iles , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 01:54:23PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 05:09:57PM +0100, Jamie Iles wrote: > > This series aims to allow VIC devices to be probed from the device tree. > > Currently the only in-tree device tree enabled user of the VIC is versatile, > > but I'll shortly submit patches for picoxcell on device tree that uses 2 > > VIC's. > > > > I've split this into 3 patches for bisectability, but this could be fairly > > squashed into 2. > > I always prefer fewer patches. Which 2 patches would you squash > together? :-) The conversion for versatile could go into one patch, but I'm not sure it would bisect as easily (I guess that's more important though). Jamie