On 21/05/14 18:26, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> [140521 08:18]: >> On 21/05/14 18:02, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>> * Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> [140521 05:51]: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Here are the AM43xx and OMAP5 display DT changes again. I've sent the clock >>>> related changes separately, and I removed OMAP5's RFBI node, which depends on >>>> more clock changes. The RFBI driver doesn't work at the moment anyway, so >>>> removing the RFBI node should not be an issue. >>>> >>>> Tony, if these look fine (the rfbi change is the only one compared to the >>>> previous versions), can you queue them for 3.16? >>> >>> Probably best that you do a late branch again after arm-soc dts changes >>> have been merged. Sounds like you have at least that macro dependency >>> to omap-for-v3.16/dt-v2 so you should probably base your branch on >> >> There are no dependencies that I know of. Which macro dependency is that? > > Oh for the "[PATCH v2] ARM: dts: duovero-parlor: Add HDMI output" that > now uses the OMAP4_IOPAD macro. Ok. But generally, isn't it better if the .dts changes go through your tree? None of the display related .dts changes have any dependencies to omapdss as such. I can collect the patches, as I've done, to let them mature a bit in my tree, but I'd rather get them merged via your dt branch. Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
