On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:22:27PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 08/13/2014 03:16 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > > [snip] > > >>>> 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. > > It looks like somehow, this patch got lost somewhere in the submission > process. Is it too late to accept it for 3.17 if we were to re-submit it? I already resubmitted this weeks ago: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/348468 No comment / action so far. Brian -- 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
