From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753487Ab3KNXWo (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:22:44 -0500 Received: from mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.66]:38330 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752010Ab3KNXWi (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:22:38 -0500 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 50.131.214.131 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19GMCyuQTd33aprMH+xIrew Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:22:18 -0800 From: Tony Lindgren To: Luciano Coelho , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Stephen Warren , Ian Campbell , Rob Landley , Russell King , "John W. Linville" , Felipe Balbi , Sachin Kamat , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Bill Pemberton , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Luciano Coelho Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] wl1251: split wl251 platform data to a separate structure Message-ID: <20131114232217.GV10317@atomide.com> References: <1382890469-25286-1-git-send-email-sre@debian.org> <1382890469-25286-2-git-send-email-sre@debian.org> <20131114185132.GQ10317@atomide.com> <20131114230330.GB6383@earth.universe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131114230330.GB6383@earth.universe> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Sebastian Reichel [131114 15:04]: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:51:33AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > [...] > > > > If this is not going into v3.13, these will cause conflicts > > with the mach-omap2/board-*.c files for v3.14. > > > > So it might be best to do a minimal header patch first that > > can be merged in by both linux-omap and wireless trees. > > I guess this patch is pretty minimal. It also seems to be acked by > the involved Maintainers, so maybe just merge Patch 1 without the > other patches? > > This does not solve the problem with the struct modification from > the second patch, but I guess it's the more intrusive patch. Once at least the first two patches are ready, how about I queue them after -rc1 and set up an immutable branch that can be merged in by linux-omap tree and the wireless tree? Regards, Tony