Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add cros_ec changes for newer boards

From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	andrew@lunn.ch, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>,
	Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@chromium.org>,
	Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	"linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
	Matt Porter <matt.porter@linaro.org>,
	jdelvare@suse.de,
	linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com>,
	u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de, kevin.strasser@linux.intel.com,
	Dylan Reid <dgreid@chromium.org>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
	schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
	laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com,
	"linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@vger.kerne>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add cros_ec changes for newer boards
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:19:14 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140428091914.GK6264@lee--X1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=UWnLLzqzmrt0z=38iDOBSRJJLNAG8PL0GSHt1758ACcg@mail.gmail.com>

[...]

> >>> Need to wait for the ARM, DT and I2C guys to review, at which point
> >>> I'll be happy to take in and supply a branch for them to pull from if
> >>> required. If there are no _true_ dependencies and the MFD changes can
> >>> be added independently without fear of build breakages, let me know
> >>> and I'll apply them separately.
> >>
> >> I believe there aren't direct dependencies between the patches. So, the
> >> MFD patches can be applied to the MFD tree and the DT patch applied to
> >> the Tegra tree. I'm simply waiting for the MFD patches to be applied
> >> before applying the DT patch so that I know the DT binding definition is
> >> fully accepted before applying a patch that uses it.
> >
> > All of the MFD patches are safe to apply and in pretty much arbitrary
> > order.  The strong dependencies in the chain are:
> >
> > * We need patch #5 (mfd: cros_ec: Sync to the latest
> > cros_ec_commands.h from EC sources) before the i2c tunnel can compile.
> >
> > * As Stephen says, he shouldn't apply the device tree until we're
> > confident that the bindings are right.  However there's no strong
> > dependency otherwise.
> >
> > * Patches #1 #2 and #3 are simply reliability fixes.  Those could land
> > at any point in time and will improve other users of cros_ec_spi (like
> > the keyboard on tegra124-venice2).
> >
> > * Patch #4 can apply any time with no issues.  Without it large i2c
> > tunnel transfers won't work, but that's not a terrible problem (all
> > normal transfers are small).
> 
> Patch #5 (latest ec commands) can also apply at any time with no
> issues, but it's needed for patch #6 (the tunnel) to compile.
> 
> All that being said, I'd request that you merge patches #1-#5 as soon
> as you can and make sure you can provide a way that Wolfram can pull
> them (or at least patch #5) into his i2c tree to keep them applying
> when he is ready to land #6.

Very well. So if I can obtain Wolfram's Ack, I can apply the MFD
changes along with patch #6 and supply him with a branch.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel