[GIT PULL] at91: move of AIC drivers for 3.17: fixes #1
Jason Cooper
jason at lakedaemon.net
Fri Aug 15 08:05:03 PDT 2014
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 04:41:50PM +0200, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 10:22:25 -0400 Jason Cooper <jason at lakedaemon.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 05:45:56PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> > > Arnd, Olof, Kevin,
> > >
> > > Boris moved both of our AIC drivers to their new home: the drivers/irqchip
> > > directory taking advantage of the genirc framework. For DT-enabled SoCs, we can
> > > use these drivers (aic and aic5) right now: Jason merged them and they are
> > > available in early 3.17 merge window.
> > > So, I build this pull-request for enabling the use of these drivers now as:
> > > - we are very early in 3.17 development
> > > - it allowed us to avoid having to depend on Jason's branch before the opening
> > > of the merge window
> >
> > Then why did I create a topic branch for you to base on?
> >
> > git://git.infradead.org/users/jcooper/linux.git irqchip/atmel-aic
>
> Don't blame Nicolas for this, he was in vacation when you created this
> branch (he came back this week), and I should have told you that he
> couldn't use it for this release cycle.
'Blame' is too strong a word. :) It was more of a friendly, "wtf?" I
guess I could have worded it better...
> > > - it removes some code from the mach-at91 directory: including the whole
> > > aic5 driver
> > > - we'd have quite a bit of time to solve issues if we found a bug
> > > - the code is basically moved so it should be error free.
> >
> > Well, this is certainly up to Arnd, Olof and Kevin, but it seems a bit
> > unusual. You're basically asking to merge changes into the current window
> > that has had _no_ time in -next... Sounds like a recipe for trouble to
> > me.
> >
> > In the future, please let me know if you're not going to need a topic
> > branch.
>
> This is all my fault, I'm the one who asked Nicolas to get these patches
> merged in 3.17, and, as I said, I should have told you that he was in
> vacation and thus could not use your topic branch for this release
> cycle.
Ah, no problem. If there was nothing exciting going on in the SoC
directory, I probably could have kept the whole series together in one
branch with just an Ack. But that's water under the bridge now.
We'll see what arm-soc says, but I suspect it's going to be wait for the
next window...
thx,
Jason.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list