Re: [PATCH 0/4] Dove pinctrl fixes and DT enabling

Jason Cooper
2012-11-21T15:52:25Z

Linus,

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:45:42PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/21/2012 10:59 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> This patch relies on a patch set for mvebu pinctrl taken through
> >>> Linus' pinctrl branch. As there is no other platform than Dove
> >>> involved, I suggest to take it though Jason's tree to avoid any
> >>> further conflicts.
> >>
> >> Sounds like a plan. So you have some commit history pulled
> >> in from the pinctrl tree in the MVEBU tree?
> >
> > I am referring to patches for a pinctrl/mvebu subfolder. IIRC Thomas
> > posted that patch a while ago. Jason is currently sorting things out
> > for mvebu pull requests. I guess both can comment on your question,
> > as I don't fully understand it.
>
> So what I mean is that the patches creating pinctrl/mvebu is in the
> pinctrl tree, so if patches in the MVEBU tree depend on these,
> then it must have pulled in a branch from pinctrl or applied the
> same patches in that tree too (which is OK *sometimes*).

Yes, Thomas and Gregory informed me of the pinctrl dependency and said
they were using for-next from the pinctrl tree. I've used that branch
to merge and build successfully. Is that ok in practice or is there a
more specific branch I should pull in as a dependency?

thx,

Jason.