From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [CFT 11/11] Add feature removal of old OMAP private DMA implementation Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 09:32:17 +0100 Message-ID: <20120609083217.GA11404@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20120607110610.GB15973@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4FD24657.5020207@landley.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:55240 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750988Ab2FIIc3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Jun 2012 04:32:29 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FD24657.5020207@landley.net> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Landley Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 01:37:11PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > On 06/07/2012 06:09 AM, Russell King wrote: > > Acked-by: Linus Walleij > > Signed-off-by: Russell King > > --- > > Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt | 11 +++++++++++ > > 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt b/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt > > index 56000b3..1f7ba35 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt > > @@ -612,3 +612,14 @@ When: June 2013 > > Why: Unsupported/unmaintained/unused since 2.6 > > > > ---------------------------- > > + > > +What: OMAP private DMA implementation > > +When: 2013 > > +Why: We have a DMA engine implementation; all users should be updated > > + to use this rather than persisting with the old APIs. The old APIs > > + block merging the old DMA engine implementation into the DMA > > + engine driver. > > +Who: Russell King , > > + Santosh Shilimkar > > + > > +---------------------------- > > Whose tree do feature-removal-schedule patches go in through? > > (They're not really documentation, they're design coordination/logistics.) I don't think there is any specific tree. It would also be silly to split it from this patch set; if it were to be split, and there would need to be coordination with the rest of the patch set to ensure this change didn't go in without the rest - that would not make sense.