Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:07:54 -0700 Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:36:44 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> On Monday 08 April 2013, Stephen Warren wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Should do the trick, if we can make sure that your tree is > merged > > >> > >> prior to my patches. > > >> > > > > >> > > I'm not sure but I think, arm-soc tree should be merged into > mainline before others... > > >> > > > > >> > >> Can you put it into your tree for 3.10? > > >> > >> > > >> > > I did, so it should be fine. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > You may want to discuss how to handle this dependency with the arm- > soc > > >> > maintainers (CC'd). > > >> > > >> I'm fine with putting the same branch into arm-soc as well as the > gpio tree > > >> and anything else that might need it, that tends to be the least > invasive > > >> way. > > > > > > Just a reminder: that had better be the exact same branch and that > branch > > > had better never be rebased/rewritten ... > > > > Sorry, which branch are we talking about - is it the one I published > > for -next initially? If so wouldn't it be simpler to withdraw it and > > have Grant integrate the patches in his branch? Since no one depends > > on them for now anyway... > > > > I remember rebasing it once some time ago to add Acked-bys, but it > > hasn't changed since then. > > I am talking about the branch that Arnd says should be merged into both > the arm-soc and gpio trees. > Well, AFAIK, the problem including "select GENERIC_GPIO" happened only in samsung tree so arm-soc tree is enough. If any problems, please let me know. Arnd, just note, the fix is included in my pull-request [09/10]. Thanks. - Kukjin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
