On 06/11/2013 06:10 PM, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > Hi Sebastian, Hi Samuel, > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 05:29:22PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >>> Then, this is a pretty big patchset, with iio, input and mfd all mixed >>> together and it is likely to create merge conflicts. >> They somehow depend on each other. Otherwise I would have sent three >> series, one per subsystem. > Of course they depend on each other, but the dependency is mostly for > iio and input to depend on the MFD changes. Except for the one #18 as mentioned below. >> Still. There is #18 which reworks the "step addressing" and involves >> changes in both (iio & input) at the same time. > Would splitting iio and input break anything there ? Yes. Once the header files is modified without the two .c files the driver is not working. To fix this I need another patch making sure input + iio does not the header files and another to user it (once everything is merged). >> There is #21. Adding this to the initial "DT support" patch would be bad >> I think because it requires some changes on the iio side which have >> nothing to do with DT. Putting the iio changes before DT would require >> to make some change to platform-data part which will go away anyway. > Wouldn't it workif you split this one into an MFD+dts file changes and > another one for the iio changes ? It would work in general. The first few DT-iio patches wouldn't make sense but then why not. >> So I started collecting ACKs from input and iio to avoid this split. If >> you really want the split then I will start doing so… > I think it would be nicer, yes. Nicer. I see. Please tell me what you think about #1 because I really would like to drop regmap and then I can start reshuffle the series :) > > Cheers, > Samuel. > Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
