From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 01:30:56 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/29] SH pinctrl and pinmux implementation Message-Id: <20130110013056.GA14282@verge.net.au> List-Id: References: <1357692769-1432-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> In-Reply-To: <1357692769-1432-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 10:34:42AM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Wednesday 09 January 2013 16:08:01 Simon Horman wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 04:06:01PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:36:38AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 01:52:20AM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > Here's the second version of the SuperH and SH Mobile pin controllers > > > > > (PFC) pinctrl and pinmux support patches. The patches are based on my > > > > > previous PFC patch series ("[PATCH v4 00/81] SH pin control and GPIO > > > > > rework") and are available from my git tree at > > > > > > > > > > git://linuxtv.org/pinchartl/fbdev.git pinmux-pinctrl > > > > > > > > > > The series depends on three patches from Linus Walleij that implement > > > > > default pinmux configuration in the device core. This solves the > > > > > bonito board issue mentioned in v1. Those patches are included in > > > > > this set for convenience. > > > > > > > > Is "ARM: shmobile: bonito: Register pinctrl mappings for LCDC0" > > > > the only patch in the series that depends on Linus's patches? > > > > > > > > > As the two dependencies will go to mainline through separate trees we > > > > > will need coordination to push this set. It would probably be easier > > > > > if it went through the mach-shmobile tree, in which case Linus' > > > > > patches should go in early during the merge window. Linus, would that > > > > > be fine with you ? Are your three patches included in this series > > > > > ready for mainline ? If so, can you provide a stable branch that you > > > > > will push ? > > > > > > > > The first patch "pinctrl: fix comment mistak" seems to be > > > > in Linus's tree, post-3.8-rc2. > > > > > > In the mean time I have applied the first 3 patches to a pinmux > > > branch in the renesas tree. This is intended as a temporary solution > > > to provide the dependency for the rest of the series. I am happy > > > to rebase on v3.8-rc3 when it is released, which should include the > > > first patch, and use this as a more permanent solution if Linus is happy > > > with it. > > If Linus can provide a stable branch that will be pushed to mainline we could > rebase the code on top of that. How can we ensure that his pull request will > be processed first ? I am not entirely sure, but I think it can work as follows: 1. Linus provides a stable branch 2. I rebase on top of that branch and send a pull request to arm-soc 3. arm-soc pulls my tree The result is that Linus's branch is pulled by arm-soc. If it is also pulled via another channel that should be fine as the commit id should be stable and git should work things out. I think. > > > I have also applied the remaining patches in the series. > > > > > > patch 1: pfc3 branch > > > patch 2, 4, 5, 8, 8: boards branch > > > patch 3, 6: soc2 branch > > > > Sorry, the above should read: > > > > patch 4-21: pfc3 > > patch 22, 23, 26, 27: boards > > patch 23, 28: pfc4 > > I assume you mean 24 and 28 here. Yes. > > patch 25, 29: soc3 > > Looks good to me. > > > > The next branch is a merge of branch and should include this entire > > > series, > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart >