[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50EC1046.3000701@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 17:55:42 +0530
From: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To: "broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com"
<broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
"sameo@...ux.intel.com" <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
"grant.likely@...retlab.ca" <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
"rob@...dley.net" <rob@...dley.net>, "lrg@...com" <lrg@...com>,
"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org"
<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] mfd/regulator: tps65090: add DT support and suspend/resume
cleanups
Hi Mark,
On Friday 28 December 2012 02:59 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> The patch series add DT support on TPS65090 device.
>
> Also remove the suspend/resume implementation as it duplicates with
> irq_suspend/irq_resume().
>
> Laxman Dewangan (4):
> mfd: tps65090: add DT support for tps65090
> regulator: tps65090: add DT support
> mfd: tps65090: Pass irq domain when adding mfd sub devices
> mfd: tps65090: remove suspend/resume callbacks
>
I am not sure that the patches are created on correct sequence for
adapting this in regulator subsystem and mfd subsystem.
Can you please review whether the changes split is fine or not?
Idea was to make independent patch for mfd and regulator so that they
can apply independently.
Thanks,
Laxman
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists