Hi, Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@xxxxxx> writes: > Hi Felipe > > On 10/12/2017 10:43 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/11/2017 12:04 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@xxxxxx> writes: >>>>>>>>>> The STM32F7 MCU family embeds two DWC2 USB OTG cores. One core is >>>>>>>>>> USB >>>>>>>>>> OTG FS and the other is USB OTG HS. The USB FS core only works >>>>>>>>>> with its >>>>>>>>>> internal phy whilst the USB HS core can work in HS with external >>>>>>>>>> ULPI phy >>>>>>>>>> or in FS/LS with the on-chip FS phy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Amelie Delaunay (7): >>>>>>>>>> dt-bindings: usb: Document the STM32F7 DWC2 USB OTG HS core >>>>>>>>>> binding >>>>>>>>>> usb: dwc2: add support for STM32F7 USB OTG HS >>>>>>>>>> ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have applied these three patches. Should I take the rest? They >>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>> like they could go upstream through the ARM maintainers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will take other DT patches in my PR. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Concerning "ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU" >>>>>>>> patch >>>>>>>> I prefer also to take it. This patch adds some pinctrl groups but >>>>>>>> stm32 >>>>>>>> pinctrl bindings will change in my next PR (we will use a macro to >>>>>>>> define pins instead of using defined values). So if you push the DT >>>>>>>> patch through your pull request there will be a merge issue. >>>>>>>> It is possible that I take also this one ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In that case, it's best if you take them all :-) Here's my Ack: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Acked-by: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'll drop them from my tree now >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok perfect, I will take DT patches (3 to 7) and I let you take patch 1&2 >>>>>> in your tree. >>>>> >>>>> Well, I have dropped them from my tree. Please two 1-7 through yours. >>>> >>>> Hum, ok for this patchset but IMO it is better (next time) that you take >>>> driver pacthes in your tree and I take only DT patches in mine. >>>> No ? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Alex >>>> >>>>> >>> >>> I thought that patches 1 and 2, as they are "driver" patches, had to be >>> applied on USB tree (so Felipe's one), and the others (3 to 7) had to be >>> applied on STM32-DT tree (Alex's one). Did I miss something? >> >> patch 1 is documentation, right? Without the documentation patch, >> checkpatch will cringe :-) So either way works. >> >> If you insist, I can take 1-2 through my tree. No worries. > > I don't want to insist :) but for me it is better (and more safe) if you > take patch 1&2 in your tree, and will take others in mine. Okay, I'll apply 1&2 -- balbi -- 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
