linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/8] mfd: Add OF device table to I2C drivers that are missing it

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 4 May 2017 12:50:16 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/8] mfd: Add OF device table to I2C drivers that are
 missing it

On Thu, 04 May 2017, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> thanks for the series.
> 
> > Most patches can be applied independently, with the exception of patches
> > 2 to 4 that should be applied in the same tree to keep bisect-ability. I
> > suggest these to go through the MFD subsystem tree.
> 
> From my POV, patches 2-5 should be applied to the same tree. Since all
> I2C related patches have my tag, I assume they will be picked up by MFD.
> Lee, let me know if you prefer differently.

I can pick them up, no problem.  Can the ARM patches be taking
independently?  I'm guessing they can since they are separate from one
another.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog