On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 03:37:04AM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote: > Hi Thierry, > > On 01/07/2015 07:20 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > >* PGP Signed by an unknown key > > > >On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 01:17:33AM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote: > >>Add basic Kbuild support for the Tegra SoC family, and specifically, > >>the Tegra132 SoC. Tegra132 pairs the NVIDIA Denver CPU complex with > >>the SoC integration of Tegra124 - hence the use of ARCH_TEGRA and the > >>Tegra124 pinctrl option. > >> > >>For the time being, Tegra ARM64 support is added with a dependency on > >>CONFIG_BROKEN. This is temporary and can be removed when the > >>following two patches for compilation failures have been merged: > >> > >>"soc: tegra: pmc: restrict compilation of suspend-related support to ARM" > >>https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/pjw/tegra-dev.git/commit/?id=053decbf3900d4e8fee799f9a29cf8d905b2fcb1 > >I think you said you were going to respin this on top of v3.19-rc1, but > >the above doesn't seem to be rebased yet. Given that the only comments > >were bikeshed from my part, do you have any objections to me taking the > >patch and apply the bikeshed myself? > > Sorry about that. I am indeed on the hook for that. I got distracted with > some other patches and haven't yet reposted that one :-( > I will do that later today. If you would prefer to do it yourself, that's > fine too. I ended up applying your patch as is. Retrospectively my comments had been a little too much on the pedantic side. > >>"clocksource: tegra: wrap arch/arm-specific sections in CONFIG_ARM" > >>https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/pjw/tegra-dev.git/commit/?id=220aa7fcc74a1a089916be6cb34b0e326f31841f > >I don't think I've seen any comments other than mine on this patch. > >Given that this patch depends on the above to get rid of the BROKEN > >dependency, it might still be preferable to take both via the Tegra > >tree. Otherwise we probably have to wait until v3.21 before we can > >apply this. > > I'm fine with them going in through you if you have a strong preference for > that approach. Generally my preference is for patches to go in through the > direct maintainer's tree to minimize the risk and hassle of merge conflicts. > But if you'll take care of that side of it, it doesn't matter too much to me > :-) We just need to pick up acks from the direct maintainers, I guess? Yes, we really just need an ack from either Daniel or Thomas on the clocksource patch. I don't think that driver has a lot of potential for merge conflicts. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpFATDdpVsXb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
