[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150811090342.GG10748@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:03:42 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
Cc: "Franklin S Cooper Jr." <fcooper@...com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
khilman@...prootsystems.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
galak@...eaurora.org, ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk,
mark.rutland@....com, pawel.moll@....com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...t.infradead.org, ssantosh@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH 3/4] ARM: davinci: Set proper SPI prescale limit
value
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:28:21PM +0530, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 August 2015 05:17 AM, Franklin S Cooper Jr. wrote:
> > ping. Patches 1 and 2 have already been pulled into Mark's spi tree and are currently in in linux-next.
> Mark, can you apply this patch to your tree as well? Thats the preferred
> route for me.
> If thats not an option for you, can you confirm that the topic/davinci
> branch of your spi tree is an immutable commit I can base my pull
> request to ARM-SoC on?
Why would there be any interdependency between the the two trees, that
would be very unusual? Adding a new value to DT doesn't need the kernel
to understand it and the driver should be compatible with existing DTs.
If there *is* some dependency that suggests the driver update has
problems...
In any case I don't have a copy of the patch any more.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists