[GIT PULL] devicetree changes for v3.3

[GIT PULL] devicetree changes for v3.3

[Grant Likely]

Hi Linus,

Please pull the following device tree changes queued up for 3.3.

There is a signed tag for this pull request: devicetree-for-linus-20120104

The following changes since commit 805a6af8dba5dfdd35ec35dc52ec0122400b2610:

  Linux 3.2 (2012-01-04 15:55:44 -0800)

are available in the git repository at:
  git://git.secretlab.ca/git/linux-2.6 devicetree/merge

Benoit Cousson (1):
      of/base: Take NULL string into account for property with multiple strings

David Daney (1):
      OF/device-tree: Add some entries to vendor-prefixes.txt

Dong Aisheng (1):
      dt: reform for_each_property to for_each_property_of_node

Fabio Estevam (1):
      ARM: prom.h: Fix build error by removing unneeded header file

Olof Johansson (1):
      dt/i2c: Enumerate some of the known trivial i2c devices

Rob Herring (3):
      i2c-designware: add OF binding support
      dt: add empty of_get_node/of_put_node functions
      irq: check domain hwirq range for DT translate

Sam Ravnborg (1):
      of/pdt: fix section mismatch warning

Uwe Kleine-König (1):
      ARM/of: allow *machine_desc.dt_compat to be const

 .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-designware.txt     |   22 ++++++++
 .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt    |   58 ++++++++++++++++++++
 .../devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt        |    3 +
 arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h                   |    2 +-
 arch/arm/include/asm/prom.h                        |    1 -
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c        |   12 ++++
 drivers/of/base.c                                  |   10 ++--
 drivers/of/fdt.c                                   |    5 +-
 drivers/of/pdt.c                                   |    2 +-
 include/linux/of.h                                 |   33 ++++++------
 include/linux/of_fdt.h                             |    4 +-
 kernel/irq/irqdomain.c                             |    3 +
 12 files changed, 125 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-designware.txt
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt


-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.

Re: [GIT PULL] devicetree changes for v3.3

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> Please pull the following device tree changes queued up for 3.3.
>
> There is a signed tag for this pull request: devicetree-for-linus-20120104
>
> The following changes since commit 805a6af8dba5dfdd35ec35dc52ec0122400b2610:
>
>  Linux 3.2 (2012-01-04 15:55:44 -0800)
>
> are available in the git repository at:
>  git://git.secretlab.ca/git/linux-2.6 devicetree/merge

Ok, so I pulled the tags, but only because I noticed that you mentioned it.

It would have been much more convenient if you had just named the tag
in the pull request directly, so that it would have said

> are available in the git repository at:
>  git://git.secretlab.ca/git/linux-2.6 devicetree-for-linus-20120104

and then my normal "cut-and-paste the pull request line" JustWorks(tm).

Of course, since you use those ugly tag names, I then end up editing
the first line so that the shortlog doesn't fill up with random crud,
so I'd actually prefer for the tag-name to not have that silly date in
it. The tag itself is dated, so the date information actually does
exist inside of it - and if I pull the signed tag, it will then exist
hidden in the merge too (and can be shown using the new "git show
--show-signature" thing):

  commit 02550d61f49266930e674286379d3601006b2893
  merged tag 'devicetree-for-linus-20120104'
  gpg: Signature made Wed 04 Jan 2012 11:07:51 PM PST using RSA key ID 760FD901
  gpg: Good signature from "Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org>"
  Merge: 2d51daaa615e c89810acbcf4
  Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
  Date:   Sat Jan 7 12:18:52 2012 -0800

      Merge tag 'devicetree-for-linus' of git://git.secretlab.ca/git/linux-2.6

      devicetree/next changes queued for v3.3 merge window

      * tag 'devicetree-for-linus-20120104' of
git://git.secretlab.ca/git/linux-2.6:
        ARM: prom.h: Fix build error by removing unneeded header file
        irq: check domain hwirq range for DT translate
        dt: add empty of_get_node/of_put_node functions
        of/pdt: fix section mismatch warning
  ...

so for a *really* nice pull request, I'd actually have preferred the
tag to just be named "devicetree-for-linus" (and the next time you
send me a pull request, you just overwrite it - use the "-f" flag for
git tag to say that you want to force the overwrite).

                      Linus

Re: [GIT PULL] devicetree changes for v3.3

[Grant Likely]

On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 12:41:25PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > Hi Linus,
> >
> > Please pull the following device tree changes queued up for 3.3.
> >
> > There is a signed tag for this pull request: devicetree-for-linus-20120104
> >
> > The following changes since commit 805a6af8dba5dfdd35ec35dc52ec0122400b2610:
> >
> >  Linux 3.2 (2012-01-04 15:55:44 -0800)
> >
> > are available in the git repository at:
> >  git://git.secretlab.ca/git/linux-2.6 devicetree/merge
> 
> Ok, so I pulled the tags, but only because I noticed that you mentioned it.
> 
> It would have been much more convenient if you had just named the tag
> in the pull request directly, so that it would have said
> 
> > are available in the git repository at:
> >  git://git.secretlab.ca/git/linux-2.6 devicetree-for-linus-20120104
> 
> and then my normal "cut-and-paste the pull request line" JustWorks(tm).
> 
> Of course, since you use those ugly tag names, I then end up editing
> the first line so that the shortlog doesn't fill up with random crud,
> so I'd actually prefer for the tag-name to not have that silly date in
> it. The tag itself is dated, so the date information actually does
> exist inside of it - and if I pull the signed tag, it will then exist
> hidden in the merge too (and can be shown using the new "git show
> --show-signature" thing):

Okay, will do.

g.