From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: GENERIC_GPIO considered deprecated Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 10:10:35 +1000 Message-ID: <20130409101035.c59edcf9fa6e40a064f7fe41@canb.auug.org.au> References: <2c9501ce342b$1535d290$3fa177b0$%kim@samsung.com> <5162EC32.2030602@wwwdotorg.org> <201304082136.44905.arnd@arndb.de> <20130409093842.656ae3fff92d5368db5c0646@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA256"; boundary="Signature=_Tue__9_Apr_2013_10_10_35_+1000_355/KesLd0LvUYG6" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alexandre Courbot Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Stephen Warren , Kukjin Kim , Olof Johansson , Romain Naour , linux-next , Grant Likely , Linus Walleij , Tomasz Figa , Heiko =?UTF-8?B?U3TDvGJuZXI=?= , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, ARM kernel mailing list List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org --Signature=_Tue__9_Apr_2013_10_10_35_+1000_355/KesLd0LvUYG6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:07:54 -0700 Alexandre Courbot wrot= e: > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Stephen Rothwell w= rote: > > > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:36:44 +0200 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> > >> On Monday 08 April 2013, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Should do the trick, if we can make sure that your tree is merged > >> > >> prior to my patches. > >> > > > >> > > I'm not sure but I think, arm-soc tree should be merged into mainl= ine before others... > >> > > > >> > >> Can you put it into your tree for 3.10? > >> > >> > >> > > I did, so it should be fine. > >> > > > >> > > >> > You may want to discuss how to handle this dependency with the arm-s= oc > >> > maintainers (CC'd). > >> > >> I'm fine with putting the same branch into arm-soc as well as the gpio= tree > >> and anything else that might need it, that tends to be the least invas= ive > >> way. > > > > Just a reminder: that had better be the exact same branch and that bran= ch > > had better never be rebased/rewritten ... >=20 > Sorry, which branch are we talking about - is it the one I published > for -next initially? If so wouldn't it be simpler to withdraw it and > have Grant integrate the patches in his branch? Since no one depends > on them for now anyway... >=20 > I remember rebasing it once some time ago to add Acked-bys, but it > hasn't changed since then. I am talking about the branch that Arnd says should be merged into both the arm-soc and gpio trees. --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au --Signature=_Tue__9_Apr_2013_10_10_35_+1000_355/KesLd0LvUYG6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJRY1x7AAoJEECxmPOUX5FEDvsP/RClNbupydN4sWsUD7M7z2j4 eYLvXhQBpjsjh+0sKVL10KM6h2cbW6wLyBcfyUNeZ/qbKM2CAIrmVAcKR+uAnqCY 2+nA3/PBcliXJtuKPZZD442m+CD1i4KnftmkkcjhnAdSeAwofSzyckZTDMDfTLyI AZe96A0xtifnbM2RExll59DigFwRYAcQ7Qjt1KtmqEfyWjar7c08pLCcnVHuHNIr ELa4fhr4qjEUkJeV64YpkqxmpCVUFYOgFCLhUaKz2gQY4RZCDvbUwB5yKJzt3aLx 8+M/GBV3l2ipK/X8rQBIKfLIrvfAyr5QQIdHoC0oeZqeb7+Jh/Ez6DgsbPTQc/mn uBm6TgSVPrWHaRZR0V4MwCmSXtB0tzBhNfdh7tt2Gjrs0vDp64tRSpdf+AzuAXf6 HR0rIhJo5N8mNUk7SxCrv1taXrU4EnmeJGnvkNLVS7h30Ed8T4LoWDZwTkCOaE4a KUZb+nS2Mh0tUOeywZ5MYfz510S5WJyHB8g4ME4RBHSUg+x50UY5O6yQmi7l8EEh c52MNfHr4kLjIZOwF4nQsaZeXYIG2dTLuin0HrTiFLLOMyG6uBA9z1wvznMZd6fY 2pMuJxEQ9OgnGbNpbikuOAgi56Dkagi40zWD7HLnbFQBm9dnwwWP/YraxBxUlm90 mrFwESvzEYyfsR0AXrJi =1DrC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Tue__9_Apr_2013_10_10_35_+1000_355/KesLd0LvUYG6--