From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:05:44 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: shmobile: sh-eth pins in DT for armadillo800eva Message-Id: <20130125090544.GD30990@verge.net.au> List-Id: References: <1359043653-11374-1-git-send-email-g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> <20130125043743.GP13691@verge.net.au> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 09:09:54AM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > Hi Simon > > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, Simon Horman wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 05:07:30PM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > This patch series gets rid of gpio_request()-style ethernet pin > > > configuration on armadillo800eva in reference implementation. > > > > Hi Guennadi, > > > > these changes seem to be reasonable to me. > > > > Are there any dependencies for the sh_eth patch? > > I assume this will be handled by David Miller through the net-next tree. > > Are there any dependencies? The last time I checked the DT bindings > > for sh_eth had not been merged. > > Obviously, it can only be applied, if the > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/sh_ether.txt file and the > sh_eth_parse_dt() function exist. Also, if there are no objections against > the new phy-reset-gpios DT property. Otherwise there are no dependencies - > as long as the phy-reset-gpios property isn't found in DT, the patch > doesn't affect the driver. Thanks, I'm slightly concerned that the other patch(es) relating to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/sh_ether.txt have gone missing in action. Do you have an interest in chasing them down or would you like me to? > > For the remaining two patches, which I assume will go through my renesas > > tree: > > * Are there any dependencies that aren't satisfied by the of-intc branch? > > AFAICS, that your branch doesn't contain Laurent's pinctrl patches, which > are needed for patch 1 to apply and for patch 3 to make sense. My earlier > MMC DT / pinctrl patches aren't required for these patches to function, > but these patches won't apply cleanly without them, since they touch the > same code fragments. So, it would be easier to merge them in the order of > submission. > > > * Could you get some Acks. At least from Laurent? > > Sure, let's give reviewers some more time :) Indeed. Laurent, if there are patches ready for me to take into the renesas tree please let me know. I'm reluctant to add any more pinmux changes for 3.9. But if a topic branch would help let me know.