From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6914BC46464 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 08:16:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17577216E5 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 08:16:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="BV3h+zr9" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 17577216E5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727571AbeHJKou (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2018 06:44:50 -0400 Received: from lelv0143.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.248]:58768 "EHLO lelv0143.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726610AbeHJKou (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2018 06:44:50 -0400 Received: from dlelxv90.itg.ti.com ([172.17.2.17]) by lelv0143.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w7A8CcV0053278; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 03:12:38 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1533888758; bh=/VBXEJ7Bd+LqYj6f6c/SJkqqcpYT+glZgN7Apv9qC98=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BV3h+zr9F3SXY+dHvLvwg6dAPDDAS1bypstMiRgm+BUkcngVAPnVRHvPkfvvAhwor W5kSSjKMc8rlF7zIS7CsMwQHhgc05FdBRFFd6kG6hu8Rs9EedHc7xMPgM4ogAZ3x4T +jPzx2WTJnIpWwRnJqeJtKhAXMsXlM2Po63Z5Tf4= Received: from DFLE109.ent.ti.com (dfle109.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.30]) by dlelxv90.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w7A8Ccdb006979; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 03:12:38 -0500 Received: from DFLE105.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.26) by DFLE109.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 03:12:37 -0500 Received: from dflp33.itg.ti.com (10.64.6.16) by DFLE105.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1466.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 03:12:37 -0500 Received: from [172.24.190.172] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by dflp33.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w7A8CRPN001830; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 03:12:28 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/28] at24: remove at24_platform_data To: Bartosz Golaszewski , Andrew Lunn CC: Bartosz Golaszewski , Wolfram Sang , Jonathan Corbet , Kevin Hilman , Russell King , Arnd Bergmann , Greg Kroah-Hartman , David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , Boris Brezillon , Marek Vasut , Richard Weinberger , Grygorii Strashko , "David S . Miller" , Srinivas Kandagatla , Naren , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Andrew Morton , Lukas Wunner , Dan Carpenter , Florian Fainelli , Ivan Khoronzhuk , Sven Van Asbroeck , Paolo Abeni , Alban Bedel , Rob Herring , David Lechner , linux-doc , LKML , arm-soc , linux-i2c , , Linux-OMAP , References: <20180808153150.23444-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20180808155548.s7p4xqsjywz3psrj@ninjato> <20180808164402.GH7275@lunn.ch> From: Sekhar Nori Message-ID: <78917b7c-fb9b-2f88-1813-8cf951e60677@ti.com> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 13:42:26 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Bart, On Wednesday 08 August 2018 10:22 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > 2018-08-08 18:44 GMT+02:00 Andrew Lunn : >> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 06:27:25PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >>> 2018-08-08 17:55 GMT+02:00 Wolfram Sang : >>>> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 05:31:22PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >>>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski >>>>> >>>>> This is a follow-up to the previously rejected series[1] which partially >>>>> removed the at24_platform_data structure. After further development and >>>>> taking reviews into account, this series finally removes that struct >>>>> completely but not without touching many different parts of the code >>>>> base. >>>>> >>>>> Since I took over maintainership of the at24 driver I've been working >>>>> towards removing at24_platform_data in favor for device properties. >>>> >>>> Wooha, nice work. I can't really comment on it but wondered how you want >>>> to upstream it (after reviews)? Pull request of an immutable branch for >>>> nvmem-tree sounds best to me. Then I could also pull it in if i2c needs >>>> it. Probably same situation for arm-soc... >>>> >>> >>> I initially wanted to merge small parts of it starting with v4.18, but >>> there were some voices against merging APIs without users. I'm not >>> sure how it should go in. There'll be a need for multiple immutable >>> branches most probably... >> >> Hi Bartosz >> >> What this series does is show all the different parts are now >> available, and can be reviewed as a whole. Once that review is >> completed, merging in parts then becomes possible. >> >> It looks like you could probably merge the nvmem, mtd and net parts >> independently via there maintainers for 4.20, since i don't think >> there are any dependencies. The arm-soc changes in 4.21, and the >> removal of the platform data in 4.22? >> >> Andrew > > We need the first batch of SoC changes for the net part and then the > second batch depends on those net changes. Also: dragging the merge > for this over a year is a bit overkill. > > Sekhar: I know you're usually provided with immutable branches from > framework maintainers for the SoC changes - is it ok for you to > provide the net maintainers with an immutable branch after applying > the first part of davinci board file changes? Yeah, sure. I will be happy to do that to speed merging. Will take a look at v2 you posted. Thanks, Sekhar