On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 05:42:53PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > Le 15/10/2015 17:31, Ludovic Desroches a écrit : > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:24:51PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 14/10/2015 at 14:11:24 +0200, Ludovic Desroches wrote : > >>> Add SAMA5D2 SoC plus Atmel flexcom and Atmel sdhci devices. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> arch/arm/configs/sama5_defconfig | 6 +++++- > >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >> It is probably worth updating the multi_v7_defconfig too (in a separate > >> patch). > >> > > > > Maybe I have to send a whole defconfig update . I mean when you do > > savedefconfig, you have more changes. I won't send each one separately. I > > have kept changes which were in relation with the stuff I had. > > > > Or I can send a defconfig update from the savedefconfig and then add > > sama5d2, flexcom and sdhci. > > Actually you can do this for our own AT91 defconfigs. > > For the multi_v7_defconfig I would recommend to simply make a patch with > our updates and let the arm-soc maintainer merge it with their current > one: I mean, they will manage the conflicts on this file anyway and the > changes to this file will not be part of one or our pull-requests but a > patch that they will handle separately: so no need to add more update > than the strictly needed ones on our end. > In fact, I realize that I have read too quickly Alexandre's answer. I have understood that I should put CONFIG_SOC_SAM_V7=y in a separate patch. So yes I would do a whole update for our defconfigs and only the addition needed for the multi_v7 one Ludovic -- 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
