Re: [GIT PULL] arm64, thunder: Enable Cavium Thunder SoC Family

Robert Richter
2014-10-06T08:34:34Z

Arnd,

On 02.10.14 17:44:48, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 02 October 2014 16:44:52 Robert Richter wrote:
> > The following changes since commit 9e82bf014195d6f0054982c463575cdce24292be:
> >
> > Linux 3.17-rc5 (2014-09-14 17:50:12 -0700)
> >
> > are available in the git repository at:
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rric/linux.git tags/for-arm-soc-v3.18
> >
> > for you to fetch changes up to 1200e87a26b6b4fe1f473267c83515117e08ee39:
> >
> > arm64, defconfig: Enable Cavium Thunder SoC in defconfig (2014-09-23 15:10:55 +0200)
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Enablement patches for Cavium Thunder SoC Family. The patches add
> > devicetree and Kconfig support and then add Thunder to the defconfig.
>
> I've pulled them into a new next/arm64 branch in the arm-soc tree,
> but noticed that you had based them on top of -rc5. If you have no
> strong reasons to pick a newer -rc, it's better to base on top of
> -rc1, to save us trouble with backmerges.
>
> I ended up rebasing to -rc1, since you gave the option to apply the
> patches directly.

thanks for applying the patches.

Ok, I think a reason to update to -rc5 was a conflict in another patch
of my patch stack unrelated to this series. Wasn't aware of
backmerging conflicts you might get and will avoid unnecessary updates
in the future.

> I originally missed the patches because they were not sent to
> arm@kernel.org but only to our personal addresses. Please include
> the arm@kernel.org address whenever you want patches or pull requests
> to get applied (as opposed to reviewed). We are not really taking
> new code for arm-soc any more, but this one was first submitted
> for inclusion a while back, so I'm making an exception.

Will use arm@kernel.org in next requests.

> Finally, I also wanted to pull your "dts, kbuild: Implement support
> for dtb vendor subdirs", but that clearly conflicts with this series,
> and I decided not to pull that and take this one instead.

I was hoping one or the other patch set would have applied earlier,
then I could have rebased them. Anyway, will do this now and let you
know after the merge window closed.

> I'm guessing we'd see conflicts with other patches in linux-next,
> so I'd rather not do the merge any more now, we can take that one
> for 3.19.

Fine with me.

-Robert