From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753245AbaIYI5b (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:57:31 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]:36144 "EHLO mail-wi0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753189AbaIYI51 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:57:27 -0400 Message-ID: <5423D8F3.104@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:57:23 +0200 From: Tomasz Figa User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kukjin Kim CC: Lorenzo Pieralisi , Mark Rutland , "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" , "'Thomas Abraham'" , "'Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz'" , daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Kukjin Kim , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "'Marek Szyprowski'" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ARM: dts: add CPU nodes for Exynos4 SoCs References: <5230569.XLlNbB5NvF@amdc1032> <018e01cfd885$770dd940$65298bc0$@kernel.org> <20140925081704.GA20841@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <5423D19B.1040203@samsung.com> <5423D23C.5010204@gmail.com> <5423D5E8.1050008@samsung.com> In-Reply-To: <5423D5E8.1050008@samsung.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 25.09.2014 10:44, Kukjin Kim wrote: > On 09/25/14 17:28, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> Hi Kukjin, >> >> On 25.09.2014 10:26, Kukjin Kim wrote: >>> On 09/25/14 17:17, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >>>> [CC'ed Daniel to make him aware this patch goes through your tree] >>>> >>> Thanks and just note the branch which is including this change actually >>> v4 is just rebased not v3 will be sent out to arm-soc last tonight or >>> tomorrow. > > v3 is correct :) sorry, I confused the version... > >> >> Could you keep this patch in a separate stable branch, so I could pull >> it as a dependency for Thomas Abraham's cpufreq series? >> > It's possible, but would be better that DT changes are sent to upstream > through samsung/arm-soc tree?...we suffered ugly conflicts between > arm-soc and driver before and then we decided DT changes should be > handled in arm-soc...Hmm... The only other option I can see is splitting the series and sending mach/dts patches through arm-soc and clock/cpufreq patches through clock tree. This would break cpufreq support in both trees, until they both hit Linus's tree. If this is not a problem, then I can proceed this way. Please correct me if I'm missing something. Best regards, Tomasz