[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYGYPhPZQmgeLA-K-RQKZMLy1qHY6P7LS6SKsFC=d=MHg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:07:27 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] dt-bindings: pinctrl: Deprecate sunxi pinctrl bindings
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> However, it looks like the first patch from this serie is missing from
> your tree, is there a reason for that?
No can you point it out?
> Also, in order to preserve bisectability, could you create an
> immutable branch for those sunxi patches so that I can merge the DT
> bits?
It's too late because they are already in the devel branch
and mixed up with merged of *other* immutable stuff.
However I think it is plain wrong to try to keep any bisectability
between the kernel at large and arch/*/boot/dts/*, because
the DTS stuff is supposed to at some point be maintained outside
of the kernel and for all OSes, they simply shouldn't be sync:ed.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists