[GIT PULL] Renesas ARM-based SoC: SoC for 3.7

[Simon Horman]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:55:47PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 09:10:26AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 02:49:51PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 11:02:07AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> >> > > Hi Olof, Hi Arnd,
> >> > >
> >> > > please consider the following SoC enhancement from
> >> > > Phil Edworthy for inclusion in 3.7.
> >> > >
> >> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > The following changes since commit 7952717adb69efc1d2443a1858f96d23c2fb93e0:
> >> > >
> >> > >   ARM: shmobile: kzm9g: enable restarting (2012-08-25 14:39:44 +0900)
> >> > >
> >> > > are available in the git repository at:
> >> > >
> >> > >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/horms/renesas.git soc
> >> >
> >> > The above is based on the previous branch we pulled from you (kzm9g), and
> >> > contains a patch to support rebooting of a board. I would have expected that to
> >> > be the base for your board branch but not the SoC branch.
> >> >
> >> > Did you mean to base them like this for some other reason that I didn't
> >> > realize, or would you mind switching the two branches so that the board
> >> > one includes the restart change but not the other way around?
> >>
> >> Sorry about that, I'll switch things around.
> >
> > Hi Olof,
> >
> > I was going to switch things around as you suggest, but I noticed
> > that the reason that I did things this way is that my kzm9g branch
> > was pulled into the next/soc branch of the arm-soc tree (commit
> > 301fd5c13257862df66c81c48d963d474e63e0ef).
> 
> Ah, gotcha, and also noticing my own slight confusion here.
> 
> First, since there's no overlap with the old and the new branch,
> there's no need to base them on each other (since they won't cause
> merge conflicts, and order of merging them in doesn't have other
> dependencies either).
> 
> But it also makes sense from your development point of view to stack
> them, since that's how you'll end up building up the branches anyway.
> So:
> 
> > With that in mind, do you want to take this pull-request as is?
> 
> Nah, no need, sorry for the confusion. I'll pull it in as it is into next/soc.

Thanks!