lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 0/3] Add device tree probe for imx/mxc gpio
    On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 12:38:32PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
    > On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 12:36:22PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
    > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 01:27:05PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
    > > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 12:37:40AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
    > > > > The first patch removes the uses of cpu_is_mx(), the second one
    > > > > changes mxc gpio number macro, and the third one adds actual device
    > > > > tree probe support.
    > > > >
    > > > > Changes since v2:
    > > > > * Keep platform case gpio range code path unchanged, and get range
    > > > > from gpio core only for dt case.
    > > > >
    > > > > Changes since v1:
    > > > > * Address review comments given by Grant and Sascha
    > > > > * Add patch #1 to get gpio range/base from gpio core
    > > > >
    > > > > Shawn Guo (3):
    > > > > gpio/mxc: get rid of the uses of cpu_is_mx()
    > > > > ARM: mxc: use ARCH_NR_GPIOS to define gpio number
    > > > > gpio/mxc: add device tree probe support
    > > >
    > > > Sascha; so are we good? Should I merge this series?
    > >
    > > These patches neither fit onto your gpio tree nor on the i.MX tree. I
    > > suggest that we give these patches a rest until both trees are merged.
    > >
    > > That's the downside of moving core drivers to drivers/ and thus to
    > > different maintainers, but I think things will become better once
    > > the actual move is completed.
    >
    > It's a trivial conflict though. I've gone ahead and picked up this

    There is conflict because I based the series off linux-next. I
    checked the code and I think the conflict was resolved correctly.

    > series and pushed it out to gpio/next. Shawn, please test the
    > gpio/next branch and make sure there aren't any regressions. I've
    > only done a bit of build testing.
    >

    There is no problem was seen with my testing.

    --
    Regards,
    Shawn



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-07-09 08:29    [W:7.343 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site