On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ping (Olof or Matt?) > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Brian Norris > <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 09:30:40AM +0100, Russell King wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 02:07:58PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: >>> > From: Marc Carino <marc.ceeeee@xxxxxxxxx> >>> > >>> > Add the UART definitions needed to support earlyprintk on brcmstb machines. >>> > >>> > Signed-off-by: Marc Carino <marc.ceeeee@xxxxxxxxx> >>> > Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> >>> > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> I noticed that you sent this to the patch system. I asked Olof last >>> night whether he had anything in arm-soc touching Kconfig.debug, and >>> he does (a number of other platforms have updated it.) This means >>> that if I apply it to my tree, it may conflict, so I'm reluctant to >>> take it. >> >> OK... Matt told me that such patches go through you. So which is it? >> Should all Kconfig.debug patches go through the arm-soc route? > > How should this get in? Should I rebase/resend through Matt and > arm-soc? Or can you pick this up as-is? Kconfig.debug is something that we usually merge new platforms for through arm-soc. The main exception has been release cycles when Russell has been doing major surgery on the file (one of those was a few releases ago), where we've backed off to avoid conflicts. That's been the assumed arrangement from our side at least, we haven't had anything more formal than that. So, go ahead and send it through us -- if we end up having a cycle where we can't apply it we can send it over to Russell for you. -Olof -- 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
