Hi Paul, On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 09:10:28AM -0700, Paul Burton wrote: > Hi Alexandre, Quentin, all, > > On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 05:16:53PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > On 03/09/2018 22:09:10-0700, David Miller wrote: > > > From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 15:45:22 +0200 > > > > > > > On 03/09/2018 15:34:15+0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > >> > I suggest patches 1 and 8 go through MIPS tree, 2 to 5 and 11 go through > > > >> > net while the others (6, 7, 9 and 10) go through the generic PHY subsystem. > > > >> > > > >> Hi Quentin > > > >> > > > >> Are you expecting merge conflicts? If not, it might be simpler to gets > > > >> ACKs from each maintainer, and then merge it though one tree. > > > > > > > > There are some other DT changes for this cycle so those should probably > > > > go through MIPS. > > > > > > No objection for this going through the MIPS tree, and from me: > > > > > > Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > What I meant was that 1/11 and 8/11 should go through MIPS because of > > the potential conflicts. The other patches can go through net-next as > > that will make more sense. Maybe Quentin can split the series in two, > > one for MIPS and one for net if that makes it easier for you to apply. > > I'd be happy to take the .dts changes through the MIPS tree, though > looking at them won't patch 1 break bisection? > > Since you remove the hsio reg entry it looks to me like > mscc_ocelot_probe() will fail with -EINVAL (which comes from > devm_ioremap_resource() with res=NULL) until patch 3. > That's correct. > I'd feel more comfortable merging this piecemeal if it doesn't result in > us breaking bisection for however long it takes for both the trees > involved to be merged. > How do you want to proceed then? Quentin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
