On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 09:44:04AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 02:39:06PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 08:35:33AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote: > > > > It's based on your for-next. But for working, it depends on > > > pinctl/for-next. > > > Mark, may I have your ack to have it go through arm-soc? I will ask > > Arnd pull your sound/for-v3.5 branch into arm-soc as a dependency. > > You need to ensure the branch will not be rebased. > > for-3.5 is the entire undifferentiated blob of ASoC stuff, it's not > really suitable for merging elsewhere. It won't actually get rebased > but the idea of merging it into other trees doesn't seem terribly > clever, it'd make having topic branches in arm-soc a bit of a joke and > if you pull it right now you'll get problems in -next due to the the > ux500 stuff. > Pulling it into arm-soc as a dependency only means we will have it as a base for other branches that depend on. It does not change anything about how the branch flows to Linus. Arnd will only send those arm-soc branches that depend on sound/for-3.5 after it gets merged by Linus. > What does "working" mean in this context - what happens without the > pinctl changes? It will break all the imx-audmux users that haven't got any pinctrl states defined for imx-audmux. We have patches on imx (arm-soc) tree defining pinctrl states either in DT or dummy states in board files to make sure pinctrl API works fine for every imx-audmux users. -- Regards, Shawn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
