Hi, On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Sebastian Reichel > <sebastian.reichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Back in January I sent patches adding pinconf support > > for configuring mcp23s08's pull-ups. Apart from my > > custom Raspberry Pi setup the pull-up support is also > > needed by Toby Churchill SL50. > > > > Changes since PATCHv1: > > * Add patch moving mcp23s08 from gpio/ to pinctrl/ > > * Add patches updating config references in arch/ > > * Add patch removing pdata support for pullup config > > I like this and I would like to queue it early in the v4.13 > development cycle. Thanks. > > I see the following merge strategies: > > > > a) Ignore limited bisectability and merge all > > patches through their own subsystem. Compilation > > should always succeed, but the blackfin boards > > will be without mcp23s08 support with only one of > > patch 1 and 2 being applied. > > b) - Squash patch 1 & 2 > > - Queue that patch into gpio/pinctrl > > - Provide immutable-branch for blackfin & arm > > - Blackfin & ARM can pull immutable-branch & apply defconfig patch > > - gpio/pinctrl can queue patch 5 & 6 > > c) The same as b), but squash patch 1-4 to guarantee > > bisectability for defconfig. > > Can't I just get ACKs from the blackfin and ARM SoC maintainers > for their subsystems, merge it all into pinctrl and GPIO and provide them > an immutable branch from pinctrl to pull in if they need it? > > I will anyway need to have an immutable branch between pinctrl > and GPIO for this. > > I expect ARM and blackfin can optimistically ignore my branch unless > they get merge conflicts. Yes, that should also work. -- Sebastian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
