From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Samuel Ortiz Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] MFD: twl4030: add twl4030_codec MFD as a new child to the core Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:57:49 +0200 Message-ID: <20091022075748.GA8105@sortiz.org> References: <1255956140-4829-1-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@nokia.com> <1255956140-4829-2-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@nokia.com> <20091021231311.GF17796@sortiz.org> <200910220904.32676.peter.ujfalusi@nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200910220904.32676.peter.ujfalusi@nokia.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Ujfalusi Cc: "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "tony@atomide.com" , "broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:04:32AM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > I'll check, if the MFD patch applies to mfd-2.6:for-next also, but to= have the=20 > soc codec changes the MFD patch should go to the sound-2.6 tree as we= ll to make=20 > sure it is not braking things. >=20 > All-in-all, how these things can be handled? The OMAP patch has been acked by Tony. Then we I'm fine with the mfd on= e and Mark is also ok with the remaining asoc one, all 3 patches have to go t= hrough one single tree. It seems to me that this patchset is mostly an asoc one, even though al= l of those patches depend on the MFD one. So I'd perfectly fine if they'd al= l go through Mark's tree, and then I'd have to make sure I'm sending my 2.6.= 33 merge window pull request _after_ Mark's code is in Linus tree. Once it= 's there, I can work on merging conflicts with the few twl4030-core pendin= g patches from my tree. Mark, what do you think ? Cheers, Samuel. =20 > Thanks,=20 > P=E9ter --=20 Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/