From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759392Ab2INKPw (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Sep 2012 06:15:52 -0400 Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:62764 "EHLO mail-ey0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758497Ab2INKPu (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Sep 2012 06:15:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 11:15:44 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Linus Walleij , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, STEricsson_nomadik_linux@list.st.com, linus.walleij@stericsson.com, arnd@arndb.de, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/19] i2c-nomadik: Register sub-devices when passed via Device Tree Message-ID: <20120914101542.GT3374@gmail.com> References: <1347016499-29354-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1347016499-29354-13-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20120912105202.GD2624@pengutronix.de> <20120914082754.GE3374@gmail.com> <20120914084141.GA2630@pengutronix.de> <20120914090228.GH3374@gmail.com> <20120914093945.GB2630@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20120914093945.GB2630@pengutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Now there is: > > git://git.linaro.org/people/ljones/linux-3.0-ux500.git preview-for-next > > OK from having a glimpse, I'd prefer to squash (or have squashed) > > i2c: nomadik: Add Device Tree support to the Nomadik I2C driver > i2c-nomadik: Register sub-devices when passed via Device Tree Sure, no problem > Documentation: Device Tree binding information for i2c-nomadik driver > (Documentation should go along with the code) I'm still not too sure about how this benefits anyone. You can ensure the documentation is placed in an adjacent patch, so it's just as easy to make reference to. > into one patch and take that via the I2C tree. This will allow me to > resolve the merge conflict in my tree on my own. I don't see a strong > reason to have those go via arm-soc (like prevented build-failures or > easier merges), if I missed such a reason, please let me know. I don't have any good reasons for you not to take the patch(es) though your tree. Please go ahead. -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog