From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v5 0/4] atmel-mci device tree support Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:23:01 +0000 Message-ID: <201207241623.01588.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1343136606-8874-1-git-send-email-ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1343136606-8874-1-git-send-email-ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> 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: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: plagnioj@jcrosoft.com, ludovic.desroches@atmel.com, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, cjb@laptop.org, nicolas.ferre@atmel.com List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 24 July 2012, ludovic.desroches@atmel.com wrote: > I resend this set of patches because patches 2, 3 and 4 were acked by > Jean-Christophe. Patch 1 was also acked by Jean-Christophe excepted for > cd-inverted property since it was redundant with gpio bindings. > > I thought we were agree to go ahead since it was a common binding already > documented and it will concern all drivers. I just looked at the patches for the first time, but it looks all great, so Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann > Chris are you agree to take patch 1/4? Others patches may go to at91 tree, > isn't it? > By the way, I have updated documentation in patch 1/4 in the same way as you > did with the patch 'mmc: dt: Deduplicate binding docs by referencing mmc.txt'. > I didn't remove common properties from slot part because I think it is not > obvious to use these properties into the slot node. If you want to take it all through the mmc tree, that's also fine with me. Arnd