From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] spi: s3c64xx: add support for device tree Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:16:57 +0100 Message-ID: <20120712161657.GC7256@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1342021265-11212-1-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <20120711174908.GP3938@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <0fae01cd600e$442ed160$cc8c7420$%kim@samsung.com> <20120712130234.GE3957@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="z4+8/lEcDcG5Ke9S" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Abraham Cc: Kukjin Kim , spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, rob.herring@calxeda.com, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, jaswinder.singh@linaro.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --z4+8/lEcDcG5Ke9S Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 07:13:37PM +0530, Thomas Abraham wrote: > On 12 July 2012 18:32, Mark Brown wrote: > > Well, simple conflicts aren't that big a deal... However, Thomas > > mentioned that in order to test this he merged the SPI tree into your > > tree so perhaps there is also a dependency on the SPI tree? If that was > > just for good practice testing then I agree that the best thing is to > > merge via your tree, otherwise we might need to think harder. > There were no dependency on Grant's spi/next branch. It was merged > just to ensure that nothing is broken. OK, great - then the Samsung tree it is. --z4+8/lEcDcG5Ke9S Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJP/vhyAAoJEBus8iNuMP3dQ38P/0m4ND3jUnJYH4/DfwgQz0Eh Fy9fIK6BwxjVeykl9rDvP5GgLq+ckFRcL4aTTGE+GuLWP8QQgnsapzEg+DtdRSj1 hzsJNmOF2eDgX/SgFju3P9pgnd4/N13xOTE7/rujZ4TkcSYohmaGFz18SO5jOdIY Kvy8zvUch1M4bl7LUFAmdE7qYEI2mQR+JGey+lxCqbAZW45rEXpZrwD6XLcAPXVy i/zCTsJMA+xqiF5HZrJcOQDHA/Gj+OOwdCq3v2RzwyoVWGC1WkeqcjjdpmxVTDlf Q4pTzyvhk14u9GHk2IdGCF55XbbLol7tGaMPkrVVLT+8FvwSwrw4JcJykhJ6VZU4 56nYwsiFLWWmMnePE7hTG8RV5n84b8wnaCyLCau97pN5kzCUiEukRWadGhvmjSxc tJJVjiJCUkVQcgvI8204hAegAwLYAtcBUdXNAdEE+1Oz/2s/QLn+t8Oqpf3d7a5U 7piPIWBuTCbRrLW1omJbb9412rrBiOn4cPAe91vfLLd8zTV9MUhy/qr/DkoY+Jga AaLLG6v/xLJdD8XSK2+6lrkAxGxbaO7ieLB+LfpkVqp6TjbxlfKGtpIeGla44RbW 8xxmJxHNDXMV4gACU80VZI6pBFZrofA12GlKRoTz+K70jQjr1fCJi+E1eSaF0CLu bpT31LCsWpoZhY3VKg0H =zVJo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --z4+8/lEcDcG5Ke9S-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:16:57 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v5 0/6] spi: s3c64xx: add support for device tree In-Reply-To: References: <1342021265-11212-1-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <20120711174908.GP3938@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <0fae01cd600e$442ed160$cc8c7420$%kim@samsung.com> <20120712130234.GE3957@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Message-ID: <20120712161657.GC7256@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 07:13:37PM +0530, Thomas Abraham wrote: > On 12 July 2012 18:32, Mark Brown wrote: > > Well, simple conflicts aren't that big a deal... However, Thomas > > mentioned that in order to test this he merged the SPI tree into your > > tree so perhaps there is also a dependency on the SPI tree? If that was > > just for good practice testing then I agree that the best thing is to > > merge via your tree, otherwise we might need to think harder. > There were no dependency on Grant's spi/next branch. It was merged > just to ensure that nothing is broken. OK, great - then the Samsung tree it is. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: