[AT91 PULL] defconfig pullrequest

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday 23 November 2011, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> On 11/10/2011 02:35 AM, Olof Johansson :
> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
> > <plagnioj at jcrosoft.com> wrote:
> >> On 01:37 Thu 10 Nov     , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> >>> On 08:01 Wed 09 Nov     , Olof Johansson wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
> >>>> <plagnioj at jcrosoft.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>        when do you pull this one?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>        can it go to the 3.2?
> >>>>
> >>>> Arnd is offline most of this week, so I'll reply.
> >>>>
> >>>> The merge window is closed and only bug fixes should be sent upstream
> >>>> at this time, so this should go into a 3.3-targeted branch now.
> >>>>
> >>>> The pull request was sent halfway through the merge window, which to
> >>>> be strict means that it was already too late. Next time, please make
> >>>> sure your branches are staged in the arm-soc tree before the window
> >>>> opens, ideally around -rc6 or -rc7 time frame.
> >>> the pull was send first before the release of 3.1 originaly it's a resend of
> >>> the previous one split in 2 pull
> >>>
> >>> so was suposed to be merged before
> >> I forget to mention it but there was an agreement with arnd durring the kernel
> >> summit to pull the defconfig part and let the gpio go for 3.3
> > 
> > Ok. I'll defer to Arnd when he's back next week then!
> 
> Arnd, ping?

Sorry for the delay in replying.

I looked at

  git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git j/for-arnd-defconfig

again, and the changes in there do not match the description, so I'm not
pulling them like this:

1. The series was not rebased to leave out the gpio patches, the HEAD of
the branch still contains them.

2. The patches are described as 'rename ...config to ...config', but they
actually modify the files as well.

3. There are in fact merge conflicts against 3.2-rc2.

I can still take the changes, but please rebase them. It would also be
better to split the patches on functional changes, instead of per file,
and make sure that each patch only does what the description says, like:

* ARM: at91: enable additional boards in existing defconfig files
* ARM: at91: refresh defconfig files for 3.2
* ARM: at91: rename defconfig files appropriately

	Arnd