[GIT PULL v2] Reset controller API

[Olof Johansson]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:37:09PM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Hi Olof,
> 
> Am Donnerstag, den 11.04.2013, 03:25 -0700 schrieb Olof Johansson:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:20 AM, Olof Johansson <olof at lixom.net> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:19:34AM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > >> Hi Olof,
> > >>
> > >> I have added two fixes on top of the reset series at
> > >> git://git.pengutronix.de/git/pza/linux.git reset/for_v3.10.
> > >> Could you pull them in together with the rest?
> > >>
> > >> The following changes since commit 8bb9660418e05bb1845ac1a2428444d78e322cc7:
> > >>
> > >>   Linux 3.9-rc4 (2013-03-23 16:52:44 -0700)
> > >>
> > >> are available in the git repository at:
> > >>
> > >>   git://git.pengutronix.de/git/pza/linux.git reset/for_v3.10
> > >>
> > >> for you to fetch changes up to fbdb93ecb869f02a5f8f145fa06a0984c415a7d4:
> > >>
> > >>   Documentation: gpio-reset.txt: Fix 'initially-in-reset' example (2013-04-09 09:55:00 +0200)
> > >>
> > >> They add a simple API for devices to request being reset by separate
> > >> reset controller hardware and implement the reset signal device tree
> > >> bindings proposed by Stephen Warren.
> > >> The patches have been discussed on the linux-arm-kernel list under the topic
> > >> "Reset controller API to reset IP modules on i.MX5 and i.MX6".
> > >>
> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> Dan Carpenter (1):
> > >>       reset: NULL deref on allocation failure
> > >>
> > >> Fabio Estevam (1):
> > >>       Documentation: gpio-reset.txt: Fix 'initially-in-reset' example
> > >>
> > >> Philipp Zabel (2):
> > >>       reset: Add reset controller API
> > >>       reset: Add driver for gpio-controlled reset pins
> > >>
> > >> Stephen Warren (1):
> > >>       dt: describe base reset signal binding
> > >
> > > Hmm, I don't see an ack or reviewed-by on these subsystem bindings from
> > > neither Rob nor Grant.
> > >
> > > Since it's a brand new subsystem binding, I'd like to see them ack it
> > > before we pick it up.
> > 
> > Sigh. Ok, so I now stumbled across the Ack from Rob that you didn't
> > pick up. Don't do it like that again, please. If Shawn prematurely
> > bases his code on top of unacked patches, then that's his problem, not
> > yours.
> 
> Sorry I didn't notice that Rob's ack didn't have you in Cc. So shall I
> leave the dt binding patch untouched this time? I'll take note of this
> for the future.

See below.

> > The problem still remains though, since the gpio-reset binding hasn't
> > seen an ack on the list, as far as I can tell. And I'll have a comment
> > on that as well in a minute, see separate reply on that patch.
> 
> Ok. What would you have me do now? I could revert the gpio-reset patch
> (possibly asking Shawn to pull that, too), and have it do another round
> on the list instead. Or I could address your comments with a relative
> patch, and put that on top.

This is a case where rebase is fine, as far as I am concerned. Just tell
Shawn to also rebase his dependent code accordingly. That way you can
add Rob's ack too.

Once the bindings have been ironed out you can add it back, but that's looking
like 3.11 material now.


-Olof