Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 02/26/2013 11:56 AM, Alexander Shishkin wrote: >> Peter Chen <peter.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Hi Alex, >> >> Hi, >> >>> Do we have a chipidea repo which is queued for mainline? >>> We have several patchsets for chipidea these monthes, I >>> don't know their status. For me, I would like based >>> on your tree if it exists. >> >> I thought about it, but then it seems like having a separate branch is >> bound to be confusing to most people. I'd much rather prefer everything >> go to usb-next, and this is my current plan. Since Greg will start >> applying new stuff to usb-next after -rc1 is tagged, I'll send my >> current stash of patches for inclusion then. If your patchset, for > > Can we have a look at your queued patches? Sure, http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=135902434508839 >> example, has conflicts with my stuff that's not merged, I'll try to take >> care of resolving the conflicts and submit everything to Greg. In other >> words, it should be always ok to base your chipidea patchsets on >> usb-next. >> >> Let me know if this sounds reasonable to you. > > Michael has already done that work (some S-o-b form Michael are missing) > and rebased Sascha's and Peter's patches to current linus/master, see > this tree : > > http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=mgr/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/chipidea-for-v3.10 Taking a quick look, quite some of those patches are not ready for inclusion yet. So if the question is, do we need a -next tree for all the chipidea patchsets floating around, it might be a good thing. But it's not what Peter was asking in the first place. > The tree includes my patch we resent yesterday, as Sascha's series > depends on this. Great, I'll take a look. Thanks, -- Alex -- 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
