linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/11] ARM: at91: remove !DT support for at91rm9200

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:	Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:48:43 +0100
From:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Ludovic Desroches" <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>,
	Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] ARM: at91: remove !DT support for at91rm9200

On 28/11/2014 11:25, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 28 November 2014 10:36:09 Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> On 27/11/2014 18:38, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Thursday 27 November 2014 18:12:43 Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>>>> On 27/11/2014 at 17:49:50 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote :
>>>>> On Thursday 27 November 2014 17:06:28 Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>>>>>> This is the last series of patches that removes the non-Device-Tree board
>>>>>> support for older Atmel SoCs.
>>>>>> Again, for the record, it was announced here
>>>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/10/293 ([ANNOUNCE] ARM: at91: removal of board
>>>>>> files) two months ago.
>>>>>> Several files beyond at91rm9200 are touched this time as I tried to remove the
>>>>>> biggest parts that were related to !DT SoC initializations. More cleanup is
>>>>>> certainly needed to remove dead code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The diffstat is also pretty big as a lot of at91rm9200 boards were remaining.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Awesome stuff!
>>>>>
>>>>> Two questions:
>>>>>
>>>>> - is anything holding this up from getting merged in 3.19?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you think this is not too late in the cycle, I would say go ahead 
>>>
>>> I'd say we should do it, unless there are last-minute regressions.
>>
>> Arnd,
>>
>> I am totally in favor for a merge into 3.19.
>> I wanted to wait one day or two but given that the official announce had
>> been made several months ago, I don't think it makes a big difference.
>>
>> So, what do you prefer:
>>
>> 1/ I wait today and send you the pull-request this evening (our time)
>> 2/ I send you the pull-request at the beginning of next week but still
>> can make it for 3.19?
> 
> Just send the pull request whenever you have it ready. If some bug shows
> up, reply to that mail with an updated pull request.

Okay, I do it right now then.

Thanks Arnd.


>> (BTW, in the meantime, there is a pending pull-request (at91-cleanup3)
>> but it is true that you needn't pulling it in if you plan to take this
>> one which will be named at91-cleanup4 and that will obviously contain
>> the 3rd one).
> 
> Yes, I have a backlog of pull requests to look at, should get to that soon
> today.
> 
> 	Arnd
> 
> 


-- 
Nicolas Ferre
--
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/