>On Thursday 23 August 2012, Tony Prisk wrote: >> Patchset based on Arnd's arm-soc/for-next branch. >> >> >> Could I get this reviewed, hopefully for inclusion into v3.7.
>I can take them into the arm-soc tree if there are no new comments. >For the last two patches, you need to get an Acked-by comment from the >gpio and clk maintainers, respectively, or you should send them >the patches for inclusion in those subsystem trees. > Arnd Linus W has provided some feedback on the gpio driver - I missed the issues he raised the first time around so just waiting for him to take a look at v4 when he's got time. I haven't heard from Mike T in regards to the new clock code - He did reply about the original patch (pre-devicetree) but I asked him to hold off reviewing it because it was going to be rewritten. EHCI/UHCI has gone to -next (on patchv2) via usb-next git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/usb.git There haven't been any changes to it in v3/v4. GPIO going via another tree isn't really an issue if necessary. Without the clock patch (9/9), the mach-vt8500 patch (6/9) won't compile due to unresolved symbols. In arch/arm/mach-vt8500/vt8500.c - you will get an unresolved symbol for 'vtwm_clk_init' Not sure if this matters, thought I should point it out. Does it need to compile cleanly in your tree (which is what I would assume), or just once its all combined in -next? Does it matter that the usb patches are already in -next? I don't really understand the requirements around submitting to individual trees and which (if any) of these points are actually issues. Regards Tony Prisk _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
