From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 01:02:27 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: shmobile: sh-eth pins in DT for armadillo800eva Message-Id: <20130128010227.GI3423@verge.net.au> List-Id: References: <1359043653-11374-1-git-send-email-g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> <20130125090544.GD30990@verge.net.au> <1531226.VAPa4M6s5W@avalon> In-Reply-To: <1531226.VAPa4M6s5W@avalon> 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 10:57:08AM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Friday 25 January 2013 18:05:44 Simon Horman wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 09:09:54AM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > 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. > > I'd like the gpio_request_one() patches to go to v3.9 if possible. The other > pinctrl patches will need to wait until v3.10 I'm afraid. Understood. I have now queued the gpio_request_one() patches up for v3.9.