Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] ARM: davinci: remove duplicate aemif support | From | Sekhar Nori <> | Date | Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:32:13 +0530 |
| |
Hi David,
On Monday 06 August 2018 10:05 PM, David Lechner wrote: > On 07/10/2018 05:19 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> On Friday 06 July 2018 11:09 PM, David Lechner wrote: >>> On 07/04/2018 01:35 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: >>>> Hi David, >>>> >>>> On Monday 02 July 2018 09:02 PM, David Lechner wrote: >>>>> On 07/02/2018 07:28 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: >>>>>> Hi David, Stephen, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thursday 28 June 2018 03:27 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >>>>>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This series moves all aemif/nand users to using the ti-aemif >>>>>>> platform >>>>>>> driver located in drivers/memory instead of the older API located in >>>>>>> mach-davinci. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First five patches add necessary changes to the clock driver. Next >>>>>>> seven convert the board files to using the ti-aemif driver. Last >>>>>>> patch >>>>>>> removes now dead code. >>>>>> >>>>>> How do you want to handle this series? I can apply the series and >>>>>> provide you an immutable branch on v4.18-rc1 with the clock patches >>>>>> applied if that can work. >>>>> >>>>> Sounds good to me. But I'm new to this maintainer thing, so maybe >>>>> there is something to consider that I haven't thought of? >>>> >>>> I don't think there is more to it. Ultimately there should not be two >>>> commits for the same patch. Either you can apply and share the >>>> commit to >>>> use or I can do that as well. I am equally fine either way. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Sekhar >>>> >>> >>> I've created a branch for-sekhar at https://github.com/dlech/linux.git >>> with the clk commits. >> >> Thanks. I merged commit f917ff75ac55b6d829c9d1142e83913064565d5b (top of >> that branch) to my v4.19/soc branch. Please do let Stephen and Mike know >> about this then when you send your stuff for v4.19. >> > > Since there have been no more clk-davinci patches for v4.19, I assume that > it is OK to just let this go through the ARM tree via Sekhar?
Yes, that should be fine.
Thanks, Sekhar
| |