Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] gpio: Emma Mobile GPIO driver V2 | Date | Sat, 19 May 2012 14:06:14 +0200 |
| |
On Thursday, May 17, 2012, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > > On Thursday, May 17, 2012, Olof Johansson wrote: > >> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > >> > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012, Linus Walleij wrote: > >> >> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Do you guys have any preferences how to merge this? > >> >> > > >> >> > Can I include it together with the EMEV2 SoC bits perhaps? That may be > >> >> > easy so we can keep track of the platform data header file dependency. > >> >> > >> >> For ux500 I made a special "gpio and pins" branch and sent through ARM SoC. > >> > > >> > The problem is we have a patch depending on the $subject one in the EMEV2 > >> > series and it would be better to keep them both together if that's not > >> > a big deal. > >> > >> Dependencies are fine, as long as they are not circular. You can > >> either pull in the gpio/pins branch into the EMEV2 branch, or base it > >> on it. > > > > I guess I'll try to merge the gpio/pins into the EMEV2 branch. > > By the way, I should have mentioned that if the dependencies are only > for building and not for context when applying patches, then it's > sufficient to let us know in the pull request so we merge the branches > in the right order when sending to Linus (so we maintain > bisectability).
Well, eventually I have taken the GPIO patch from Magnus into the emev2 branch, because that has been much more convenient to me (pull request sent already).
Thanks, Rafael
| |