[GIT PULL] ste_dma40 updates for 3.9

Olof Johansson olof at lixom.net
Tue Jan 15 14:14:50 EST 2013

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:53:05AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Olof Johansson <olof at lixom.net> wrote:
> > This series of patches only modify the ste_dma40 driver, there are no
> > corresponding changes under arch/arm that need to be coordinated or
> > considered w.r.t. merge conflicts. I.e. they all seem nicely isolated
> > to only the driver.
> >
> > So is there a specific reason for why these shouldn't just go in
> > through the dmaengine tree?
> One reason would be if there are DMA bindings to device tree coming
> this merge window, as I'm told, and it implicates a lot of platform code
> changes on top of this as we adopt to it.
> But maybe this will be wholly confined to the DMAengine tree?

Changing platform code in the driver trees is asking for conflicts at
merge time and a grumpy Linus, I'd prefer to merge arch/arm/* through
arm-soc in that case.

Either way, this branch can be merged into dmaengine as a branch pull,
and if needed we can bring it in as a dependency on arm-soc. We would
need the same for the dmaengine DT bindings branch as a base. Of course,
that requires that Vinod doesn't rebase his branch and keeps the merge
intact. Vinod, is that compatible with your workflow?


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list