From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753561AbcHRHWJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2016 03:22:09 -0400 Received: from benson.default.arb33.uk0.bigv.io ([46.43.0.16]:49360 "EHLO benson.default.arb33.uk0.bigv.io" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751449AbcHRHWH (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2016 03:22:07 -0400 Message-ID: <1471504916.6295.32.camel@hellion.org.uk> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ARM: dts: Remove use of skeleton.dtsi from bcm283x.dtsi From: Ian Campbell To: Mark Rutland , arm@kernel.org Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Warren , Catalin Marinas , Lee Jones , Will Deacon , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Anholt , Rob Herring , Gerd Hoffmann , Frank Rowand , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:21:56 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1470739709.4745.23.camel@hellion.org.uk> References: <1470233565-30154-1-git-send-email-ijc@hellion.org.uk> <20160803144858.GA29054@leverpostej> <1470739709.4745.23.camel@hellion.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.1-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 11:48 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2016-08-03 at 15:48 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > >  > > > [...]Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell > >  > > I also don't have the relevant hardware to test with, but this > looks > > generally like the right thing. So FWIW: > >  > > Acked-by: Mark Rutland > > Thanks (and Stefan too). > > I think these things generally go via the arm-soc tree? Arnd & Olaf, > would it be possible to get this fix in for rc2 please (or in any event > for 4.8). Although it's an external tree I believe build breakage in > the split-out DT git repo is worth addressing. This change doesn't appear to be in either v4.8-rc2, Linus' tree nor in the arm-soc tree that I can see. So, ping? Or am I barking up the wrong tree pointing this patch towards arm-soc (via arm@k.o)? Ian