On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:13:49AM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> 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
>
> :-)
Yes, indeed.
> > 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.
I agree that this seems to be a good choice given the nature
of the changes. I'll try and confirm that Olof feels the same way.
--
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
