[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8760bk1t1l.fsf@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 14:53:26 +0300
From: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>
To: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
Amelie DELAUNAY <amelie.delaunay@...com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
John Youn <johnyoun@...opsys.com>
Cc: "linux-usb\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree\@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel\@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Benjamin GAIGNARD <benjamin.gaignard@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] Add support for USB OTG on STM32F7
Hi,
Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com> writes:
>>>> I thought that patches 1 and 2, as they are "driver" patches, had to be
>>>> applied on USB tree (so Felipe's one), and the others (3 to 7) had to be
>>>> applied on STM32-DT tree (Alex's one). Did I miss something?
>>>
>>> patch 1 is documentation, right? Without the documentation patch,
>>> checkpatch will cringe :-) So either way works.
>>>
>>> If you insist, I can take 1-2 through my tree. No worries.
>>
>> I don't want to insist :) but for me it is better (and more safe) if you
>> take patch 1&2 in your tree, and will take others in mine.
>
> Okay, I'll apply 1&2
they are now in my testing/next and next branches.
--
balbi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists