[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140815164150.5085b324@bbrezillon>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 16:41:50 +0200
From: Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To: Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
Cc: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
arm@...nel.org, Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] at91: move of AIC drivers for 3.17: fixes #1
Hi Jason,
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 10:22:25 -0400
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net> wrote:
> Nicolas,
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 05:45:56PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> > Arnd, Olof, Kevin,
> >
> > Boris moved both of our AIC drivers to their new home: the drivers/irqchip
> > directory taking advantage of the genirc framework. For DT-enabled SoCs, we can
> > use these drivers (aic and aic5) right now: Jason merged them and they are
> > available in early 3.17 merge window.
> > So, I build this pull-request for enabling the use of these drivers now as:
> > - we are very early in 3.17 development
> > - it allowed us to avoid having to depend on Jason's branch before the opening
> > of the merge window
>
> Then why did I create a topic branch for you to base on?
>
> git://git.infradead.org/users/jcooper/linux.git irqchip/atmel-aic
Don't blame Nicolas for this, he was in vacation when you created this
branch (he came back this week), and I should have told you that he
couldn't use it for this release cycle.
>
> > - it removes some code from the mach-at91 directory: including the whole
> > aic5 driver
> > - we'd have quite a bit of time to solve issues if we found a bug
> > - the code is basically moved so it should be error free.
>
> Well, this is certainly up to Arnd, Olof and Kevin, but it seems a bit
> unusual. You're basically asking to merge changes into the current window
> that has had _no_ time in -next... Sounds like a recipe for trouble to
> me.
>
> In the future, please let me know if you're not going to need a topic
> branch.
This is all my fault, I'm the one who asked Nicolas to get these patches
merged in 3.17, and, as I said, I should have told you that he was in
vacation and thus could not use your topic branch for this release
cycle.
Anyway, I understand your concern about merging stuff that have not been
tested on linux-next.
Arnd, Olof, Kevin, I'd totally understand if you refuses to takes these
patches for this release cycle.
Best Regards,
Boris
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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