Around Wed 01 Mar 2017 09:22:24 +0100 or thereabout, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Hi Hans-Christian, > > On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:04:35 +0100 > Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <egtvedt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Around Fri 24 Feb 2017 09:55:09 +0100 or thereabout, Boris Brezillon wrote: >> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:52:09 +0100 >> > Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <egtvedt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Around Fri 24 Feb 2017 09:27:42 +0100 or thereabout, Boris Brezillon wrote: >> >> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:14:30 +0100 Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <egtvedt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> Around Thu 23 Feb 2017 21:18:13 -0800 or thereabout, Håvard Skinnemoen wrote: >> >> >> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Alexandre Belloni >> >> >> > <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 21/02/2017 at 18:43:35 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> >> >> >> <snipp> >> >> >> >> >> >> If nobody complains about the 4.10 breakage, You'll have plenty of time >> >> >> >> to remove it for 4.12 >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I'm fine with that, but I haven't put much effort into keeping it >> >> >> > alive lately. If Hans-Christian agrees, I'm willing to post a patch to >> >> >> > remove it, or ack someone else's patch. >> >> >> >> >> >> Then lets plan this for 4.12, either you Håvard whip up a patch or I can >> >> >> eventually do it. >> >> >> >> >> >> I can push it through the linux-avr32 git tree on kernel.org. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Can you do that just after 4.11-rc1 is released and provide a topic >> >> > branch I can pull in my nand/next branch, so that I can rework this >> >> > patch and drop all the pdata-compat code (as suggested by Andy). >> >> >> >> OK, I will try to prepare it during the weekend. >> >> >> >> Any reason to wait for 4.11-rc1? AFAIK Linus prefers the larger changes >> >> before he starts tagging rc's. >> >> >> > >> > Oh, so you want to queue it for 4.11, that's even better. >> >> Perhaps I misunderstood you, by after 4.11-rc1 you mean queue it for 4.12? >> >> I will see what I get around to do in the weekend, it should be pretty >> straightforward, just want to make sure we remove all the bits. >> > > Any progress on this? I plan to send a new version of this series soon > and I'd like to know if I should drop pdata/avr32 support or not. Note > that I'm targeting 4.12, so, as long as you drop avr32 support in 4.12 > we should be good. I got around to make the patch series during the weekend, but I thought it would be a good idea sending them to the kernel mailing list as a FYI. Also, I was unsure if I should send the driver removals through the sub-maintainers trees, or if I can push them through linux-avr32 tree. I have a patch removing the pata driver for AVR32. -- mvh Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
