Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 9 Jul 2011 14:30:22 +0800 | From | Shawn Guo <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |