On 25.09.2014 10:44, Kukjin Kim wrote: > On 09/25/14 17:28, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> Hi Kukjin, >> >> On 25.09.2014 10:26, Kukjin Kim wrote: >>> On 09/25/14 17:17, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >>>> [CC'ed Daniel to make him aware this patch goes through your tree] >>>> >>> Thanks and just note the branch which is including this change actually >>> v4 is just rebased not v3 will be sent out to arm-soc last tonight or >>> tomorrow. > > v3 is correct :) sorry, I confused the version... > >> >> Could you keep this patch in a separate stable branch, so I could pull >> it as a dependency for Thomas Abraham's cpufreq series? >> > It's possible, but would be better that DT changes are sent to upstream > through samsung/arm-soc tree?...we suffered ugly conflicts between > arm-soc and driver before and then we decided DT changes should be > handled in arm-soc...Hmm... The only other option I can see is splitting the series and sending mach/dts patches through arm-soc and clock/cpufreq patches through clock tree. This would break cpufreq support in both trees, until they both hit Linus's tree. If this is not a problem, then I can proceed this way. Please correct me if I'm missing something. Best regards, Tomasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |