On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 02:02:12PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> Hi Olof, Hi Kevin, Hi Arnd,
> 
> Please consider these Renesas ARM based SoC DT updates for v4.21.
> 
> I am sending out this pull-request at this time as there are a number
> of patches queued up in my arm (32) DT branch and I hope that this
> will ease the burden later on in the development cycle. I expect to
> send a follow-up pull-request for this branch at the usual pre-rc6 timing.
> 
> Changes since v1:
> * Correct garbled Reviewed-by tag in
>   "[PATCH 01/16] ARM: dts: r9a06g032: Add pinctrl node"
> 
> The following changes since commit 651022382c7f8da46cb4872a545ee1da6d097d2a:
> 
>   Linux 4.20-rc1 (2018-11-04 15:37:52 -0800)
> 
> are available in the git repository at:
> 
>   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/horms/renesas.git 
> tags/renesas-arm-dt-for-v4.21
> 
> for you to fetch changes up to 673df60a880f060e3e94920c7b5f7a9ed8aa65f2:
>   ARM: dts: r9a06g032: Correct the GIC DT node name (2018-11-28 13:55:30 
> +0100)
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Renesas ARM Based SoC DT Updates for v4.21
> 
> * RZ/N1D (r9a06g032) SoC:
>   - Correct GIC DT node name
>   - Enable pin controller
> 
> * RZ/G1C (r8a77470) iWave g23S single board computer
>   - Add QSPI flash support
>   - Add pinctl support for EtherAVB
>   - Enable CMT0 (Renesas R-Car Compare Match Timer)
>   - Enable RWDT (Renesas Watchdog Timer)
>   - Enable uSD and eMMC support
> 
> * RZ/G1C (r8a77470) SoC:
>   - Describe USB-DMAC and I2C devices in DT
> 
> * R-Mobile A1 (r8a7740), Emma Mobile EV2 (emev2) and
>   SH-Mobile AG5 (sh72a0) SoCs:
>   - Include SoC name in DTSI
> 
> * R-Car H2 (r8a7790) based lager, and
>   R-Car M2-W (r8a7791) based koelsch and porter boards:
>   - Disable unconnected LVDS encoders

Hi,

If you revise a previous pull request, please do it as a new tag (and
delete the old one so our pull will fail), or at least please reply to
it so I see a "please don't pull this, I've respun a v2" threaded reply.

No harm done in this case, since you rewrote with the previous tag,
but it made me scratch my head when I saw the previous one and the hash
didn't match the email. ;)


-Olof

Reply via email to