Hi Felipe, Alex,
On 10/11/2017 04:38 PM, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>
>
> On 10/11/2017 03:26 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@xxxxxx> writes:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On 10/11/2017 01:50 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@xxxxxx> writes:
>>>>> Hi Felip
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/11/2017 12:04 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@xxxxxx> writes:
>>>>>>> The STM32F7 MCU family embeds two DWC2 USB OTG cores. One core is
>>>>>>> USB
>>>>>>> OTG FS and the other is USB OTG HS. The USB FS core only works
>>>>>>> with its
>>>>>>> internal phy whilst the USB HS core can work in HS with external
>>>>>>> ULPI phy
>>>>>>> or in FS/LS with the on-chip FS phy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amelie Delaunay (7):
>>>>>>> dt-bindings: usb: Document the STM32F7 DWC2 USB OTG HS core
>>>>>>> binding
>>>>>>> usb: dwc2: add support for STM32F7 USB OTG HS
>>>>>>> ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have applied these three patches. Should I take the rest? They
>>>>>> seems
>>>>>> like they could go upstream through the ARM maintainers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will take other DT patches in my PR.
>>>>>
>>>>> Concerning "ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU"
>>>>> patch
>>>>> I prefer also to take it. This patch adds some pinctrl groups but
>>>>> stm32
>>>>> pinctrl bindings will change in my next PR (we will use a macro to
>>>>> define pins instead of using defined values). So if you push the DT
>>>>> patch through your pull request there will be a merge issue.
>>>>> It is possible that I take also this one ?
>>>>
>>>> In that case, it's best if you take them all :-) Here's my Ack:
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> I'll drop them from my tree now
>>>
>>> Ok perfect, I will take DT patches (3 to 7) and I let you take patch 1&2
>>> in your tree.
>>
>> Well, I have dropped them from my tree. Please two 1-7 through yours.
>
> Hum, ok for this patchset but IMO it is better (next time) that you take
> driver pacthes in your tree and I take only DT patches in mine.
> No ?
>
> Regards
> Alex
>
>>
I thought that patches 1 and 2, as they are "driver" patches, had to be
applied on USB tree (so Felipe's one), and the others (3 to 7) had to be
applied on STM32-DT tree (Alex's one). Did I miss something?
Regards,
Amelie��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�{��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
