linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Add device tree probe for imx/mxc gpio

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20110709063021.GC13962@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net>
Date:	Sat, 9 Jul 2011 14:30:22 +0800
From:	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...escale.com>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
CC:	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <patches@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Add device tree probe for imx/mxc gpio

On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 12:38:32PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 12:36:22PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 01:27:05PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 12:37:40AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > > > The first patch removes the uses of cpu_is_mx(), the second one
> > > > changes mxc gpio number macro, and the third one adds actual device
> > > > tree probe support.
> > > > 
> > > > Changes since v2:
> > > >  * Keep platform case gpio range code path unchanged, and get range
> > > >    from gpio core only for dt case.
> > > > 
> > > > Changes since v1:
> > > >  * Address review comments given by Grant and Sascha
> > > >  * Add patch #1 to get gpio range/base from gpio core
> > > > 
> > > > Shawn Guo (3):
> > > >       gpio/mxc: get rid of the uses of cpu_is_mx()
> > > >       ARM: mxc: use ARCH_NR_GPIOS to define gpio number
> > > >       gpio/mxc: add device tree probe support
> > > 
> > > Sascha; so are we good?  Should I merge this series?
> > 
> > These patches neither fit onto your gpio tree nor on the i.MX tree. I
> > suggest that we give these patches a rest until both trees are merged.
> > 
> > That's the downside of moving core drivers to drivers/ and thus to
> > different maintainers, but I think things will become better once
> > the actual move is completed.
> 
> It's a trivial conflict though.  I've gone ahead and picked up this

There is conflict because I based the series off linux-next.  I
checked the code and I think the conflict was resolved correctly.

> series and pushed it out to gpio/next.  Shawn, please test the
> gpio/next branch and make sure there aren't any regressions.  I've
> only done a bit of build testing.
> 

There is no problem was seen with my testing.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/