On 07.09.2015 16:53, Heiko St?bner wrote: > Am Montag, 7. September 2015, 16:24:53 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski: >> On 07.09.2015 16:10, Sjoerd Simons wrote: >>> Hey Krzysztof, >>> >>> On Mon, 2015-09-07 at 09:02 +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 07.09.2015 05:16, Sjoerd Simons wrote: >>>>> The DesignWare HS OTG USB 2.0 is used in various SoC families among >>>>> wich >>>>> the various rockchip SoCs, enable the driver and the PHY glue for >>>>> rockchip >>>> >>>> +Cc Marek and Kukjin, >>>> >>>> This would conflict with Marek's: >>>> [PATCH v2] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Enable DWC2 USB driver and USB >>>> ethernet gadget >>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-samsung-soc/msg46743.html >>>> >>>> Probably your series and Marek's change should go together to the >>>> same >>>> tree. How about rebasing your work on top of it? >>> >>> Thanks for the pointer! I'm entirely happy to rebase on Mareks patch or >>> this one dropped for now until Mareks patch lands. >>> >>> These patches were based on current linux-next, so i guess Mareks pathc >>> didn't land just yet? Tbh, i don't really know what tries multi_v7 >>> tends to go through (especially for non-platform specific changes) >> >> It was too late for Marek's patch to go for v4.3 merge window, so I >> applied it but not pushed to my for-next branch. AFAIU, Stephen does not >> want v4.4 material during merge window because of mangling with statistics. >> >> >> If you want to rebase (or cherry-pick), you can find Marek's patch here: >> branch: defconfig-for-next >> repo: git://github.com/krzk/linux.git >> >> However this *branch will be rebased on v4.3-rc1* (because this is >> material for v4.4). After v4.3-rc1 I can prepare a tag for other >> interested parties. >> >> >> As for multi_v7_defconfig policy, I got impression from the >> Arnd/Olof/Kevin comments on LKML, that platform specific changes should >> go through platform tree. However this is multi-platform change so maybe >> we can push both patches through arm-soc. >> >> >> Arnd, Olof, Kevin (BTW, you missed to CC him), >> >> How do you wish to handle this case (USB_DWC2 and two patches: Marek's >> and Sjoerd's)? > > I guess the easiest option would be to just drop the dwc2 from here, only > keeping the phy enablement and let everything (Marek's and Sjoerd's patch) > come together in the armsoc defconfig branch? As the rest of both patches don't > seem to touch common areas, they should be easily mergable from different trees > as well. Yes, I agree. The config PHY_ROCKCHIP_USB does not depend on it directly so this should work fine. Best regards, Krzysztof
