Hi Simon,
On Thursday 05 December 2013 16:03:43 Simon Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:53:41AM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thursday 05 December 2013 12:33:23 Simon Horman wrote:
[snip]
> > > Laurent, I have v4 of these patches sitting in patchwork.
> > > Would you like me to look at queuing them up as-is or
> > > are you planning v5?
> >
> > I'm not planning for a v5, but there's another patch series ("[PATCH
> > 00/16] sh-sci: Remove unnecessary fields from platform data") that is
> > similarly organized as sh-sci / platform / sh-sci patches on top of this.
> > Would you like me to reorganize the all the 45 patches in one big series
> > with a single set of platform patches in-between two sets of sh-sci
> > patches ?
>
> That sounds nice, thanks.
>
> To be clear, we are planning sh-sci -> soc -> sh-sci ?
That's correct. I believe that should be better than
sh-sci -> soc -> sh-sci -> soc -> sh-sci
:-)
> If so, I'll have a word with Olof (CCed) as he tends to want to avoid such
> circular dependencies if possible.
I prefer to avoid them whenever possible as well, but that's not always the
case. As all sh-sci patches will go through your tree and thus the ARM SoC
tree for v3.14 that shouldn't be too much of an issue.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
