[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 17:52:47 +0100
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/10] mux controller abstraction and iio/i2c muxes
> Jonathan, Wolfram, do you have any preferences on how this should be
> coordinated regarding the new iio and i2c drivers (and iio changes)?
You got the acks, all is fine, I think.
> My plan is to at some point declare the branch immutable. Then both of
> you can pull it in. Or?
Yup, sounds good.
> But now that I think about it I wonder what the point is of having
> Greg pull it in also? Sure, third time's a charm and all that, but...
AFAIU, Greg will be your "upstream", so he should definately pull the
branch. I will just pull it in to avoid merge conflicts in my tree.
Or did I misunderstand your question?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists