From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Pinchart Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/29] Add OF support to the sh-sci serial port driver Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 11:13:49 +0100 Message-ID: <12385154.nBU2tQtEvn@avalon> References: <1384869751-9786-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> <2724721.HK10kZYK7T@avalon> <20131205070342.GC29902@verge.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20131205070342.GC29902@verge.net.au> Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Simon Horman Cc: Greg KH , Laurent Pinchart , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, Bastian Hecht , Paul Mundt , Olof Johansson List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org Hi Simon, On Thursday 05 December 2013 16:03:43 Simon Horman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:53:41AM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Thursday 05 December 2013 12:33:23 Simon Horman wrote: [snip] > > > Laurent, I have v4 of these patches sitting in patchwork. > > > Would you like me to look at queuing them up as-is or > > > are you planning v5? > > > > I'm not planning for a v5, but there's another patch series ("[PATCH > > 00/16] sh-sci: Remove unnecessary fields from platform data") that is > > similarly organized as sh-sci / platform / sh-sci patches on top of this. > > Would you like me to reorganize the all the 45 patches in one big series > > with a single set of platform patches in-between two sets of sh-sci > > patches ? > > That sounds nice, thanks. > > To be clear, we are planning sh-sci -> soc -> sh-sci ? That's correct. I believe that should be better than sh-sci -> soc -> sh-sci -> soc -> sh-sci :-) > If so, I'll have a word with Olof (CCed) as he tends to want to avoid such > circular dependencies if possible. I prefer to avoid them whenever possible as well, but that's not always the case. As all sh-sci patches will go through your tree and thus the ARM SoC tree for v3.14 that shouldn't be too much of an issue. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart