linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH REPOST 1/2] arm/dt: Tegra: Update SDHCI nodes to match bindings

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:	Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:01:56 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org,
	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH REPOST 1/2] arm/dt: Tegra: Update SDHCI nodes to match bindings

On Tuesday 20 September 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 September 2011, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 07:43:29PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 20 September 2011, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > > > The bindings were recently updated to have separate properties for each
> > > > type of GPIO. Update the Device Tree source to match that.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
> > > > Acked-by: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
> > > > ---
> > > > I'd previously sent these to Grant assuming they'd go in his dt/next branch,
> > > > but perhaps these should go in through Arnd's arm-soc next/dt branch?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Which tree has the update that changed the bindings? I think it should
> > > go into the same one.
> > > 
> > > If it's already upstream, I can take it into the fixes branch.
> > 
> > Already upstream
> 
> Ok, I see. I've applied both patches to the fixes branch and will send
> it out with the next pull request for 3.1 to Linus then.

Sorry, I just noticed that the second patch is not a bug fix, so I took it out
again and kept only patch 1/2 in the fixes branch for 3.1.

Should I take the other one as well? It's probably better to let that
go the proper way through the tegra tree for 3.2, right?

	Arnd
--
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/