On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 01:01:23PM -0800, Colin Cross wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mark Brown > >> > That's the standard way of handling this sort of thing - just send the >> > patch in a second pull request once the dependencies have all landed. > >> You could also put it in the tegra-arch branch and we could both re-merge it. > > I basically can't rebase my tree - it's merged into Takashi's tree and > there's lots of cross dependencies with my 2.6.38 fixes branch which > would cause bisect breakage. If you want to cherry pick the relevant > WM8903 commit over into your tree that'd also be OK by me. > We should be fine with two pull requests. I would still like to get all the changes into the for-next branch, without the wm8903 header change, but with the harmony file that depends on it. I will point the for-linus branch at the last change that compiles without the wm8903 header change. linux-next should get the ASoC tree and the Tegra for-next tree, so everything should compile there. I'm going to be out of the office next week, so this is probably the last chance to get features in 2.6.39. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
