2018-08-08 18:44 GMT+02:00 Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 06:27:25PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> 2018-08-08 17:55 GMT+02:00 Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 05:31:22PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> >> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> >> This is a follow-up to the previously rejected series[1] which partially >> >> removed the at24_platform_data structure. After further development and >> >> taking reviews into account, this series finally removes that struct >> >> completely but not without touching many different parts of the code >> >> base. >> >> >> >> Since I took over maintainership of the at24 driver I've been working >> >> towards removing at24_platform_data in favor for device properties. >> > >> > Wooha, nice work. I can't really comment on it but wondered how you want >> > to upstream it (after reviews)? Pull request of an immutable branch for >> > nvmem-tree sounds best to me. Then I could also pull it in if i2c needs >> > it. Probably same situation for arm-soc... >> > >> >> I initially wanted to merge small parts of it starting with v4.18, but >> there were some voices against merging APIs without users. I'm not >> sure how it should go in. There'll be a need for multiple immutable >> branches most probably... > > Hi Bartosz > > What this series does is show all the different parts are now > available, and can be reviewed as a whole. Once that review is > completed, merging in parts then becomes possible. > > It looks like you could probably merge the nvmem, mtd and net parts > independently via there maintainers for 4.20, since i don't think > there are any dependencies. The arm-soc changes in 4.21, and the > removal of the platform data in 4.22? > > Andrew We need the first batch of SoC changes for the net part and then the second batch depends on those net changes. Also: dragging the merge for this over a year is a bit overkill. Sekhar: I know you're usually provided with immutable branches from framework maintainers for the SoC changes - is it ok for you to provide the net maintainers with an immutable branch after applying the first part of davinci board file changes? Bart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
