Patches for 2.6.39 merge window

Patches for 2.6.39 merge window

[Colin Cross]

2.6.38-rc6 is out, and everything that will be posted for the 2.6.39
merge window should be in, with a few exceptions.  I still intend to
merge Olof's Seaboard patch set and Stephen's audio clock patch set,
both of which I broke at the last minute with clock changes.  The HDMI
audio patches are bug fixes and can go in a little later once they are
tested.  I think I have merged everything else that has been posted
for Tegra for-next.  If I am missing anything, let me know soon.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

RE: Patches for 2.6.39 merge window

[Stephen Warren]

Colin Cross wrote at Tuesday, February 22, 2011 1:18 PM:
> 2.6.38-rc6 is out, and everything that will be posted for the 2.6.39
> merge window should be in, with a few exceptions.  I still intend to
> merge Olof's Seaboard patch set and Stephen's audio clock patch set,

There are a few small other additions needed for the audio drivers;
a few pinmux edits and a couple small pieces of platform data to
pass to the audio machine and codec drivers. I hope to post these
ASAP, as soon as I can rebase them on top of the latest Tegra for-next
and perform a little testing.

One small issue I did notice though:

In the ASoC for-2.6.39 tree, I added a field to the wm8903 platform data
that's needed to support the new gpiolib functionality I added to the wm8903
driver. This header update is only in the ASoC tree right now. I'm not sure
quite how to handle this, since the Tegra tree will need that header update
in order to fully define the wm8903 platform data.

I think what we should have done is added that header patch to ASoC's
tegra-arch branch and merged it into the Tegra tree like harmony_audio.h.
However I forgot that would be needed, so it's too late now.

Should we handle it like this: Check in all the platform data to Tegra
for-next, but with that one new field removed or commented out. Wait until
the merge window is open for 2.6.39 (or 2.6.39-rc1 is released), and hence
Tegra for-next/for-linus can merge from Linus' tree to pick up the new
wm8903.h, then add or uncomment that one field in the platform data?

CC'ing Mark Brown to comment on that too.

-- 
nvpublic

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Patches for 2.6.39 merge window

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:48:46PM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote:

> Should we handle it like this: Check in all the platform data to Tegra
> for-next, but with that one new field removed or commented out. Wait until
> the merge window is open for 2.6.39 (or 2.6.39-rc1 is released), and hence
> Tegra for-next/for-linus can merge from Linus' tree to pick up the new
> wm8903.h, then add or uncomment that one field in the platform data?

That's the standard way of handling this sort of thing - just send the
patch in a second pull request once the dependencies have all landed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Patches for 2.6.39 merge window

[Colin Cross]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mark Brown
<broonie-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:48:46PM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
>> Should we handle it like this: Check in all the platform data to Tegra
>> for-next, but with that one new field removed or commented out. Wait until
>> the merge window is open for 2.6.39 (or 2.6.39-rc1 is released), and hence
>> Tegra for-next/for-linus can merge from Linus' tree to pick up the new
>> wm8903.h, then add or uncomment that one field in the platform data?
>
> That's the standard way of handling this sort of thing - just send the
> patch in a second pull request once the dependencies have all landed.
>

You could also put it in the tegra-arch branch and we could both re-merge it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Patches for 2.6.39 merge window

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 01:01:23PM -0800, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mark Brown

> > That's the standard way of handling this sort of thing - just send the
> > patch in a second pull request once the dependencies have all landed.

> You could also put it in the tegra-arch branch and we could both re-merge it.

I basically can't rebase my tree - it's merged into Takashi's tree and
there's lots of cross dependencies with my 2.6.38 fixes branch which
would cause bisect breakage.  If you want to cherry pick the relevant
WM8903 commit over into your tree that'd also be OK by me.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Patches for 2.6.39 merge window

[Colin Cross]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Mark Brown
<broonie-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 01:01:23PM -0800, Colin Cross wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mark Brown
>
>> > That's the standard way of handling this sort of thing - just send the
>> > patch in a second pull request once the dependencies have all landed.
>
>> You could also put it in the tegra-arch branch and we could both re-merge it.
>
> I basically can't rebase my tree - it's merged into Takashi's tree and
> there's lots of cross dependencies with my 2.6.38 fixes branch which
> would cause bisect breakage.  If you want to cherry pick the relevant
> WM8903 commit over into your tree that'd also be OK by me.
>

We should be fine with two pull requests.  I would still like to get
all the changes into the for-next branch, without the wm8903 header
change, but with the harmony file that depends on it.  I will point
the for-linus branch at the last change that compiles without the
wm8903 header change. linux-next should get the ASoC tree and the
Tegra for-next tree, so everything should compile there.

I'm going to be out of the office next week, so this is probably the
last chance to get features in 2.6.39.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

RE: Patches for 2.6.39 merge window

[Stephen Warren]

Colin Cross wrote at Thursday, March 03, 2011 12:12 PM:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Mark Brown
> <broonie-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 01:01:23PM -0800, Colin Cross wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mark Brown
> >
> >> > That's the standard way of handling this sort of thing - just send
> the
> >> > patch in a second pull request once the dependencies have all landed.
> >
> >> You could also put it in the tegra-arch branch and we could both re-
> merge it.
> >
> > I basically can't rebase my tree - it's merged into Takashi's tree and
> > there's lots of cross dependencies with my 2.6.38 fixes branch which
> > would cause bisect breakage.  If you want to cherry pick the relevant
> > WM8903 commit over into your tree that'd also be OK by me.
> >
> 
> We should be fine with two pull requests.  I would still like to get
> all the changes into the for-next branch, without the wm8903 header
> change, but with the harmony file that depends on it.  I will point
> the for-linus branch at the last change that compiles without the
> wm8903 header change. linux-next should get the ASoC tree and the
> Tegra for-next tree, so everything should compile there.

OK. I can easily split my patch into two:
a) Add basically everything, except for the gpio_base WM8903 platform
   data field. (for-linus)
b) Add the WM8903 platform data field. (for 2nd pull request)

However, my board patches also rely on I2C platform data. There was
some discussion that Tegra's for-next would merge in Ben's I2C Tegra
branch and hence pick up the new platform header from that.

Olof also mentioned he'd submit a patch through his branch to add all
the I2C bus registrations for all boards once the I2C branch was
merged.

However, I haven't seen any traction on this. Is this still happening?
If not, I'll have to split my patch slightly differently, to also pull
out the I2C registrations into the second patch.

> I'm going to be out of the office next week, so this is probably the
> last chance to get features in 2.6.39.

I'm a little out-of-touch here, but this confuses me; 2.6.38 hasn't
been released yet, and hence the 2-week merge window isn't open yet.
And even then, I think we can submit small pull requests for stuff
like this throughout 2.6.39's rc releases. I'm not why right now is
the last chance to get stuff in.

-- 
nvpublic

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Patches for 2.6.39 merge window

[Colin Cross]

(resending as plain text)

To prevent the merge window from becoming a mess, patches are supposed
to be in linux-next by rc6 of the previous release.

Ben never responded to my question about merging i2c-tegra, so I'll
merge it for now.

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Colin Cross wrote at Thursday, March 03, 2011 12:12 PM:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Mark Brown
>> <broonie-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 01:01:23PM -0800, Colin Cross wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mark Brown
>> >
>> >> > That's the standard way of handling this sort of thing - just send
>> the
>> >> > patch in a second pull request once the dependencies have all landed.
>> >
>> >> You could also put it in the tegra-arch branch and we could both re-
>> merge it.
>> >
>> > I basically can't rebase my tree - it's merged into Takashi's tree and
>> > there's lots of cross dependencies with my 2.6.38 fixes branch which
>> > would cause bisect breakage.  If you want to cherry pick the relevant
>> > WM8903 commit over into your tree that'd also be OK by me.
>> >
>>
>> We should be fine with two pull requests.  I would still like to get
>> all the changes into the for-next branch, without the wm8903 header
>> change, but with the harmony file that depends on it.  I will point
>> the for-linus branch at the last change that compiles without the
>> wm8903 header change. linux-next should get the ASoC tree and the
>> Tegra for-next tree, so everything should compile there.
>
> OK. I can easily split my patch into two:
> a) Add basically everything, except for the gpio_base WM8903 platform
>   data field. (for-linus)
> b) Add the WM8903 platform data field. (for 2nd pull request)
>
> However, my board patches also rely on I2C platform data. There was
> some discussion that Tegra's for-next would merge in Ben's I2C Tegra
> branch and hence pick up the new platform header from that.
>
> Olof also mentioned he'd submit a patch through his branch to add all
> the I2C bus registrations for all boards once the I2C branch was
> merged.
>
> However, I haven't seen any traction on this. Is this still happening?
> If not, I'll have to split my patch slightly differently, to also pull
> out the I2C registrations into the second patch.
>
>> I'm going to be out of the office next week, so this is probably the
>> last chance to get features in 2.6.39.
>
> I'm a little out-of-touch here, but this confuses me; 2.6.38 hasn't
> been released yet, and hence the 2-week merge window isn't open yet.
> And even then, I think we can submit small pull requests for stuff
> like this throughout 2.6.39's rc releases. I'm not why right now is
> the last chance to get stuff in.
>
> --
> nvpublic
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Patches for 2.6.39 merge window

[Colin Cross]

I pushed the merge of Ben's i2c-tegra as for-next-i2c.  I will put any
patches that depend on i2c support in that branch, and keep it rebased
on top of for-next.

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Colin Cross <ccross-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> (resending as plain text)
>
> To prevent the merge window from becoming a mess, patches are supposed
> to be in linux-next by rc6 of the previous release.
>
> Ben never responded to my question about merging i2c-tegra, so I'll
> merge it for now.
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> Colin Cross wrote at Thursday, March 03, 2011 12:12 PM:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Mark Brown
>>> <broonie-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 01:01:23PM -0800, Colin Cross wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mark Brown
>>> >
>>> >> > That's the standard way of handling this sort of thing - just send
>>> the
>>> >> > patch in a second pull request once the dependencies have all landed.
>>> >
>>> >> You could also put it in the tegra-arch branch and we could both re-
>>> merge it.
>>> >
>>> > I basically can't rebase my tree - it's merged into Takashi's tree and
>>> > there's lots of cross dependencies with my 2.6.38 fixes branch which
>>> > would cause bisect breakage.  If you want to cherry pick the relevant
>>> > WM8903 commit over into your tree that'd also be OK by me.
>>> >
>>>
>>> We should be fine with two pull requests.  I would still like to get
>>> all the changes into the for-next branch, without the wm8903 header
>>> change, but with the harmony file that depends on it.  I will point
>>> the for-linus branch at the last change that compiles without the
>>> wm8903 header change. linux-next should get the ASoC tree and the
>>> Tegra for-next tree, so everything should compile there.
>>
>> OK. I can easily split my patch into two:
>> a) Add basically everything, except for the gpio_base WM8903 platform
>>   data field. (for-linus)
>> b) Add the WM8903 platform data field. (for 2nd pull request)
>>
>> However, my board patches also rely on I2C platform data. There was
>> some discussion that Tegra's for-next would merge in Ben's I2C Tegra
>> branch and hence pick up the new platform header from that.
>>
>> Olof also mentioned he'd submit a patch through his branch to add all
>> the I2C bus registrations for all boards once the I2C branch was
>> merged.
>>
>> However, I haven't seen any traction on this. Is this still happening?
>> If not, I'll have to split my patch slightly differently, to also pull
>> out the I2C registrations into the second patch.
>>
>>> I'm going to be out of the office next week, so this is probably the
>>> last chance to get features in 2.6.39.
>>
>> I'm a little out-of-touch here, but this confuses me; 2.6.38 hasn't
>> been released yet, and hence the 2-week merge window isn't open yet.
>> And even then, I think we can submit small pull requests for stuff
>> like this throughout 2.6.39's rc releases. I'm not why right now is
>> the last chance to get stuff in.
>>
>> --
>> nvpublic
>>
>>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

RE: Patches for 2.6.39 merge window

[Stephen Warren]

Colin Cross wrote at Thursday, March 03, 2011 3:25 PM:
> I pushed the merge of Ben's i2c-tegra as for-next-i2c.  I will put any
> patches that depend on i2c support in that branch, and keep it rebased
> on top of for-next.

Previously, Olof said he'd take my board patches through his tree. I assume
that's no longer the plan, and I should just create a patch-set based on
Tegra for-next or for-next-i2c?

FYI, I now have 3 patches left not applied, in git log order:

ARM: Tegra: Enable Harmony audio support
    
    * Set up platform data required by I2C, and ASoC machine & codec drivers.
    * Enable required GPIO pins as GPIOs.
    * Initialize audio-related clocks.
    * Correctly configure pinmux for audio-related GPIOs.

    (this can be split to parts before/after picking up latest ASoC, and
    perhaps also part for for-next, part for for-next-i2c?)

ARM: Tegra: Create defines for GPIO names
    
    This ensures they're kept in sync between platform_data definitions and
    the GPIO table initialization.

    (Should apply right away, to for-next)
    
ARM: Tegra: Add devices.c entries for audio
    
    For I2S, DAS, PCM devices

    (Should apply right away, to for-next)

> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Colin Cross <ccross-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > (resending as plain text)
> >
> > To prevent the merge window from becoming a mess, patches are supposed
> > to be in linux-next by rc6 of the previous release.
> >
> > Ben never responded to my question about merging i2c-tegra, so I'll
> > merge it for now.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> wrote:
> >> Colin Cross wrote at Thursday, March 03, 2011 12:12 PM:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Mark Brown
> >>> <broonie-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 01:01:23PM -0800, Colin Cross wrote:
> >>> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mark Brown
> >>> >
> >>> >> > That's the standard way of handling this sort of thing - just
> send
> >>> the
> >>> >> > patch in a second pull request once the dependencies have all
> landed.
> >>> >
> >>> >> You could also put it in the tegra-arch branch and we could both
> re-
> >>> merge it.
> >>> >
> >>> > I basically can't rebase my tree - it's merged into Takashi's tree
> and
> >>> > there's lots of cross dependencies with my 2.6.38 fixes branch which
> >>> > would cause bisect breakage.  If you want to cherry pick the
> relevant
> >>> > WM8903 commit over into your tree that'd also be OK by me.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> We should be fine with two pull requests.  I would still like to get
> >>> all the changes into the for-next branch, without the wm8903 header
> >>> change, but with the harmony file that depends on it.  I will point
> >>> the for-linus branch at the last change that compiles without the
> >>> wm8903 header change. linux-next should get the ASoC tree and the
> >>> Tegra for-next tree, so everything should compile there.
> >>
> >> OK. I can easily split my patch into two:
> >> a) Add basically everything, except for the gpio_base WM8903 platform
> >>   data field. (for-linus)
> >> b) Add the WM8903 platform data field. (for 2nd pull request)
> >>
> >> However, my board patches also rely on I2C platform data. There was
> >> some discussion that Tegra's for-next would merge in Ben's I2C Tegra
> >> branch and hence pick up the new platform header from that.
> >>
> >> Olof also mentioned he'd submit a patch through his branch to add all
> >> the I2C bus registrations for all boards once the I2C branch was
> >> merged.
> >>
> >> However, I haven't seen any traction on this. Is this still happening?
> >> If not, I'll have to split my patch slightly differently, to also pull
> >> out the I2C registrations into the second patch.
> >>
> >>> I'm going to be out of the office next week, so this is probably the
> >>> last chance to get features in 2.6.39.
> >>
> >> I'm a little out-of-touch here, but this confuses me; 2.6.38 hasn't
> >> been released yet, and hence the 2-week merge window isn't open yet.
> >> And even then, I think we can submit small pull requests for stuff
> >> like this throughout 2.6.39's rc releases. I'm not why right now is
> >> the last chance to get stuff in.
> >>
> >> --
> >> nvpublic


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Patches for 2.6.39 merge window

[Colin Cross]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Colin Cross wrote at Thursday, March 03, 2011 3:25 PM:
>> I pushed the merge of Ben's i2c-tegra as for-next-i2c.  I will put any
>> patches that depend on i2c support in that branch, and keep it rebased
>> on top of for-next.
>
> Previously, Olof said he'd take my board patches through his tree. I assume
> that's no longer the plan, and I should just create a patch-set based on
> Tegra for-next or for-next-i2c?
>
> FYI, I now have 3 patches left not applied, in git log order:
>
> ARM: Tegra: Enable Harmony audio support
>
>    * Set up platform data required by I2C, and ASoC machine & codec drivers.
>    * Enable required GPIO pins as GPIOs.
>    * Initialize audio-related clocks.
>    * Correctly configure pinmux for audio-related GPIOs.
>
>    (this can be split to parts before/after picking up latest ASoC, and
>    perhaps also part for for-next, part for for-next-i2c?)
>
> ARM: Tegra: Create defines for GPIO names
>
>    This ensures they're kept in sync between platform_data definitions and
>    the GPIO table initialization.
>
>    (Should apply right away, to for-next)
>
> ARM: Tegra: Add devices.c entries for audio
>
>    For I2S, DAS, PCM devices
>
>    (Should apply right away, to for-next)
>
>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Colin Cross <ccross-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> > (resending as plain text)
>> >
>> > To prevent the merge window from becoming a mess, patches are supposed
>> > to be in linux-next by rc6 of the previous release.
>> >
>> > Ben never responded to my question about merging i2c-tegra, so I'll
>> > merge it for now.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcphl2p70BpVqQ@public.gmane.orgm>
>> wrote:
>> >> Colin Cross wrote at Thursday, March 03, 2011 12:12 PM:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Mark Brown
>> >>> <broonie-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> >>> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 01:01:23PM -0800, Colin Cross wrote:
>> >>> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mark Brown
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> > That's the standard way of handling this sort of thing - just
>> send
>> >>> the
>> >>> >> > patch in a second pull request once the dependencies have all
>> landed.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> You could also put it in the tegra-arch branch and we could both
>> re-
>> >>> merge it.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I basically can't rebase my tree - it's merged into Takashi's tree
>> and
>> >>> > there's lots of cross dependencies with my 2.6.38 fixes branch which
>> >>> > would cause bisect breakage.  If you want to cherry pick the
>> relevant
>> >>> > WM8903 commit over into your tree that'd also be OK by me.
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> We should be fine with two pull requests.  I would still like to get
>> >>> all the changes into the for-next branch, without the wm8903 header
>> >>> change, but with the harmony file that depends on it.  I will point
>> >>> the for-linus branch at the last change that compiles without the
>> >>> wm8903 header change. linux-next should get the ASoC tree and the
>> >>> Tegra for-next tree, so everything should compile there.
>> >>
>> >> OK. I can easily split my patch into two:
>> >> a) Add basically everything, except for the gpio_base WM8903 platform
>> >>   data field. (for-linus)
>> >> b) Add the WM8903 platform data field. (for 2nd pull request)
>> >>
>> >> However, my board patches also rely on I2C platform data. There was
>> >> some discussion that Tegra's for-next would merge in Ben's I2C Tegra
>> >> branch and hence pick up the new platform header from that.
>> >>
>> >> Olof also mentioned he'd submit a patch through his branch to add all
>> >> the I2C bus registrations for all boards once the I2C branch was
>> >> merged.
>> >>
>> >> However, I haven't seen any traction on this. Is this still happening?
>> >> If not, I'll have to split my patch slightly differently, to also pull
>> >> out the I2C registrations into the second patch.
>> >>
>> >>> I'm going to be out of the office next week, so this is probably the
>> >>> last chance to get features in 2.6.39.
>> >>
>> >> I'm a little out-of-touch here, but this confuses me; 2.6.38 hasn't
>> >> been released yet, and hence the 2-week merge window isn't open yet.
>> >> And even then, I think we can submit small pull requests for stuff
>> >> like this throughout 2.6.39's rc releases. I'm not why right now is
>> >> the last chance to get stuff in.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> nvpublic
>
>
>

Olof, are you going to take these or should I?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Patches for 2.6.39 merge window

[Olof Johansson]

I can do them (sorry, been out today and was also waiting on the i2c
merge to land).

I'll take them through my tree with the i2c changes. I'll post the
base i2c board changes either tonight or tomorrow morning, after that
Stephens can easily go on top.


-Olof

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Colin Cross <ccross-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> Colin Cross wrote at Thursday, March 03, 2011 3:25 PM:
>>> I pushed the merge of Ben's i2c-tegra as for-next-i2c.  I will put any
>>> patches that depend on i2c support in that branch, and keep it rebased
>>> on top of for-next.
>>
>> Previously, Olof said he'd take my board patches through his tree. I assume
>> that's no longer the plan, and I should just create a patch-set based on
>> Tegra for-next or for-next-i2c?
>>
>> FYI, I now have 3 patches left not applied, in git log order:
>>
>> ARM: Tegra: Enable Harmony audio support
>>
>>    * Set up platform data required by I2C, and ASoC machine & codec drivers.
>>    * Enable required GPIO pins as GPIOs.
>>    * Initialize audio-related clocks.
>>    * Correctly configure pinmux for audio-related GPIOs.
>>
>>    (this can be split to parts before/after picking up latest ASoC, and
>>    perhaps also part for for-next, part for for-next-i2c?)
>>
>> ARM: Tegra: Create defines for GPIO names
>>
>>    This ensures they're kept in sync between platform_data definitions and
>>    the GPIO table initialization.
>>
>>    (Should apply right away, to for-next)
>>
>> ARM: Tegra: Add devices.c entries for audio
>>
>>    For I2S, DAS, PCM devices
>>
>>    (Should apply right away, to for-next)
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Colin Cross <ccross-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> > (resending as plain text)
>>> >
>>> > To prevent the merge window from becoming a mess, patches are supposed
>>> > to be in linux-next by rc6 of the previous release.
>>> >
>>> > Ben never responded to my question about merging i2c-tegra, so I'll
>>> > merge it for now.
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> Colin Cross wrote at Thursday, March 03, 2011 12:12 PM:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Mark Brown
>>> >>> <broonie-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> >>> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 01:01:23PM -0800, Colin Cross wrote:
>>> >>> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mark Brown
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >> > That's the standard way of handling this sort of thing - just
>>> send
>>> >>> the
>>> >>> >> > patch in a second pull request once the dependencies have all
>>> landed.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >> You could also put it in the tegra-arch branch and we could both
>>> re-
>>> >>> merge it.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > I basically can't rebase my tree - it's merged into Takashi's tree
>>> and
>>> >>> > there's lots of cross dependencies with my 2.6.38 fixes branch which
>>> >>> > would cause bisect breakage.  If you want to cherry pick the
>>> relevant
>>> >>> > WM8903 commit over into your tree that'd also be OK by me.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We should be fine with two pull requests.  I would still like to get
>>> >>> all the changes into the for-next branch, without the wm8903 header
>>> >>> change, but with the harmony file that depends on it.  I will point
>>> >>> the for-linus branch at the last change that compiles without the
>>> >>> wm8903 header change. linux-next should get the ASoC tree and the
>>> >>> Tegra for-next tree, so everything should compile there.
>>> >>
>>> >> OK. I can easily split my patch into two:
>>> >> a) Add basically everything, except for the gpio_base WM8903 platform
>>> >>   data field. (for-linus)
>>> >> b) Add the WM8903 platform data field. (for 2nd pull request)
>>> >>
>>> >> However, my board patches also rely on I2C platform data. There was
>>> >> some discussion that Tegra's for-next would merge in Ben's I2C Tegra
>>> >> branch and hence pick up the new platform header from that.
>>> >>
>>> >> Olof also mentioned he'd submit a patch through his branch to add all
>>> >> the I2C bus registrations for all boards once the I2C branch was
>>> >> merged.
>>> >>
>>> >> However, I haven't seen any traction on this. Is this still happening?
>>> >> If not, I'll have to split my patch slightly differently, to also pull
>>> >> out the I2C registrations into the second patch.
>>> >>
>>> >>> I'm going to be out of the office next week, so this is probably the
>>> >>> last chance to get features in 2.6.39.
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm a little out-of-touch here, but this confuses me; 2.6.38 hasn't
>>> >> been released yet, and hence the 2-week merge window isn't open yet.
>>> >> And even then, I think we can submit small pull requests for stuff
>>> >> like this throughout 2.6.39's rc releases. I'm not why right now is
>>> >> the last chance to get stuff in.
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> nvpublic
>>
>>
>>
>
> Olof, are you going to take these or should I?
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

RE: Patches for 2.6.39 merge window

[Stephen Warren]

Olof Johansson wrote at Thursday, March 03, 2011 6:01 PM:
> I can do them (sorry, been out today and was also waiting on the i2c
> merge to land).
> 
> I'll take them through my tree with the i2c changes. I'll post the
> base i2c board changes either tonight or tomorrow morning, after that
> Stephens can easily go on top.

Olof,

I didn't see any updates in git.

Do my changes still need to be in today? I'm assuming you wanted me to
rebase my changes on top of your I2C changes one they were published, and
mail the patches again...

 
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Colin Cross <ccross-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> wrote:
> >> Colin Cross wrote at Thursday, March 03, 2011 3:25 PM:
> >>> I pushed the merge of Ben's i2c-tegra as for-next-i2c.  I will put any
> >>> patches that depend on i2c support in that branch, and keep it rebased
> >>> on top of for-next.
> >>
> >> Previously, Olof said he'd take my board patches through his tree. I
> assume
> >> that's no longer the plan, and I should just create a patch-set based
> on
> >> Tegra for-next or for-next-i2c?
> >>
> >> FYI, I now have 3 patches left not applied, in git log order:
> >>
> >> ARM: Tegra: Enable Harmony audio support
> >>
> >>    * Set up platform data required by I2C, and ASoC machine & codec
> drivers.
> >>    * Enable required GPIO pins as GPIOs.
> >>    * Initialize audio-related clocks.
> >>    * Correctly configure pinmux for audio-related GPIOs.
> >>
> >>    (this can be split to parts before/after picking up latest ASoC, and
> >>    perhaps also part for for-next, part for for-next-i2c?)
> >>
> >> ARM: Tegra: Create defines for GPIO names
> >>
> >>    This ensures they're kept in sync between platform_data definitions
> and
> >>    the GPIO table initialization.
> >>
> >>    (Should apply right away, to for-next)
> >>
> >> ARM: Tegra: Add devices.c entries for audio
> >>
> >>    For I2S, DAS, PCM devices
> >>
> >>    (Should apply right away, to for-next)
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Colin Cross <ccross-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>> > (resending as plain text)
> >>> >
> >>> > To prevent the merge window from becoming a mess, patches are
> supposed
> >>> > to be in linux-next by rc6 of the previous release.
> >>> >
> >>> > Ben never responded to my question about merging i2c-tegra, so I'll
> >>> > merge it for now.
> >>> >
> >>> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >> Colin Cross wrote at Thursday, March 03, 2011 12:12 PM:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Mark Brown
> >>> >>> <broonie-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>> >>> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 01:01:23PM -0800, Colin Cross wrote:
> >>> >>> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mark Brown
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >> > That's the standard way of handling this sort of thing - just
> >>> send
> >>> >>> the
> >>> >>> >> > patch in a second pull request once the dependencies have all
> >>> landed.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >> You could also put it in the tegra-arch branch and we could
> both
> >>> re-
> >>> >>> merge it.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > I basically can't rebase my tree - it's merged into Takashi's
> tree
> >>> and
> >>> >>> > there's lots of cross dependencies with my 2.6.38 fixes branch
> which
> >>> >>> > would cause bisect breakage.  If you want to cherry pick the
> >>> relevant
> >>> >>> > WM8903 commit over into your tree that'd also be OK by me.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> We should be fine with two pull requests.  I would still like to
> get
> >>> >>> all the changes into the for-next branch, without the wm8903
> header
> >>> >>> change, but with the harmony file that depends on it.  I will
> point
> >>> >>> the for-linus branch at the last change that compiles without the
> >>> >>> wm8903 header change. linux-next should get the ASoC tree and the
> >>> >>> Tegra for-next tree, so everything should compile there.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> OK. I can easily split my patch into two:
> >>> >> a) Add basically everything, except for the gpio_base WM8903
> platform
> >>> >>   data field. (for-linus)
> >>> >> b) Add the WM8903 platform data field. (for 2nd pull request)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> However, my board patches also rely on I2C platform data. There was
> >>> >> some discussion that Tegra's for-next would merge in Ben's I2C
> Tegra
> >>> >> branch and hence pick up the new platform header from that.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Olof also mentioned he'd submit a patch through his branch to add
> all
> >>> >> the I2C bus registrations for all boards once the I2C branch was
> >>> >> merged.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> However, I haven't seen any traction on this. Is this still
> happening?
> >>> >> If not, I'll have to split my patch slightly differently, to also
> pull
> >>> >> out the I2C registrations into the second patch.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> I'm going to be out of the office next week, so this is probably
> the
> >>> >>> last chance to get features in 2.6.39.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I'm a little out-of-touch here, but this confuses me; 2.6.38 hasn't
> >>> >> been released yet, and hence the 2-week merge window isn't open
> yet.
> >>> >> And even then, I think we can submit small pull requests for stuff
> >>> >> like this throughout 2.6.39's rc releases. I'm not why right now is
> >>> >> the last chance to get stuff in.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> nvpublic
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Olof, are you going to take these or should I?
> >
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Patches for 2.6.39 merge window

[Olof Johansson]

Hi,

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Olof Johansson wrote at Thursday, March 03, 2011 6:01 PM:
>> I can do them (sorry, been out today and was also waiting on the i2c
>> merge to land).
>>
>> I'll take them through my tree with the i2c changes. I'll post the
>> base i2c board changes either tonight or tomorrow morning, after that
>> Stephens can easily go on top.
>
> Olof,
>
> I didn't see any updates in git.
>
> Do my changes still need to be in today? I'm assuming you wanted me to
> rebase my changes on top of your I2C changes one they were published, and
> mail the patches again...

I've got the changes staged, but the i2c core is spewing errors about
lack of suitable probing methods that I'm investigating before
posting.


-Olof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html