On Wednesday 08 August 2018 10:22 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> 2018-08-08 18:44 GMT+02:00 Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch>:
>> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 06:27:25PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> 2018-08-08 17:55 GMT+02:00 Wolfram Sang <w...@the-dreams.de>:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 05:31:22PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszew...@baylibre.com>
>>>>> This is a follow-up to the previously rejected series 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
>>>>> 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?
> 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.