* Mohammed, Afzal [120522 00:05]:
> Hi Artem,
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:44:43, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > You merge the 2 trees and work on top of that? Or you wait for 3.5-r1
> > when everything is merged and work on top of that?
>
> I will merge 2 trees & do
>
> Tony, are you ok with th
Hi Artem,
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:44:43, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> You merge the 2 trees and work on top of that? Or you wait for 3.5-r1
> when everything is merged and work on top of that?
I will merge 2 trees & do
Tony, are you ok with that ?
Regards
Afzal
N�r��yb�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+
On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 04:26 +, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
> Tony, Artem, how should the conflict between omap & mtd trees be handled
> for patch series ?
You merge the 2 trees and work on top of that? Or you wait for 3.5-r1
when everything is merged and work on top of that?
--
Best Regards,
Arte
Hi Ivan,
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 18:20:18, Ivan Djelic wrote:
> Hi Afzal,
>
> I tried to take your series of patches, but I had issues with the
> first [1] (I did not try the others): it depends on the following patch,
> which is not in the l2-mtd-2.6 tree:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 03:38:09PM +0100, Afzal Mohammed wrote:
> Hi Tony, Artem,
>
> This series creates a fictitious GPMC interrupt chip and provide the
> clients with interrupts that could be handled using standard APIs.
> This helps in removing the requirement of driver of peripheral
> connect
