On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:55:10PM -0700, Bryan Wu wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Jun 2014, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > >> Did you see the attribute-race series I posted? Not sure how best to > >> handle the dependency, as those patches should probably go in through > >> the LEDs tree, while the first patch in that series (adding the groups > >> field) is a dependency for this patch. > >> > >> Jiri, how would this best be solved? > > > > I think the best course of action here is to gather Acks from the > > respective maintainers, and take the whole lot trough a single tree > > (probably the leds tree in this case) to avoid unnecessary intra-tree > > dependencies in a rather straighforward situation like this. > > I think the better place is HID/input tree, since this patch depends > on the initial one which is not in my tree. > I'm going to merge Johan's whole patchset and this patch probably > depends Johan's work too. Dmitry has ACKed the input-patch and Bryan has applied that one and the leds-patches to his tree (of which the first one is a dependency of this patch). Jiri, are you saying that the gt683r-driver should go in through his tree as well, that is all three patches including the first that you have already applied? I just assumed your for-next branch was immutable, but perhaps I was mistaken. Thanks, Johan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
