[GIT PULL] ARM: BCM5301X: DT changes for v3.20

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 10 February 2015 at 11:17, Olof Johansson <olof at lixom.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Le 24/01/2015 22:22, Florian Fainelli a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 23/01/2015 14:01, Olof Johansson a écrit :
>>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:33:59PM +0100, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
>>>>> Hi Olof, Hi Arnd,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a pull request with some dt updates for BCM5301X for 3.20.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following changes since commit 97bf6af1f928216fd6c5a66e8a57bfa95a659672:
>>>>>
>>>>>   Linux 3.19-rc1 (2014-12-20 17:08:50 -0800)
>>>>>
>>>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>>>
>>>>>   https://github.com/hauke/linux.git tags/bcm5301x-dt-2015-01-20
>>>>>
>>>>> for you to fetch changes up to 5b1864b899d2b591402704dd0f6528c8661f1817:
>>>>>
>>>>>   ARM: BCM5301X: Add DT for Buffalo WZR-900DHP (2015-01-20 23:23:25 +0100)
>>>>
>>>> Hi Hauke,
>>>>
>>>> I've merged this into next/dt now, comments below.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> bcm5301x-dt-2015-01-20: ARM: BCM5301X: dts updates for 3.20
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke at hauke-m.de>
>>>>
>>>> No signed-off-by needed in the tag -- the fact that you have signed it is
>>>> enough. We do ask for a few words about what's in the branch though more than
>>>> "dts updates". Something to think about going forward.
>>>>
>>>> Also:
>>>>
>>>> We had asked that broadcom platforms go in together through Florian from
>>>> here on out, so we don't have to deal with merge requests from each and
>>>> every one of you since there are several subplatforms. Would that be ok
>>>> with you?
>>>
>>> Humm, I had asked you and Arnd a couple times if you would actually
>>> agree in us (bcm5301x, cygnus, brcmstb and others) doing separate pull
>>> requests, the rationale being that:
>>>
>>> - the previous mach-bcm maintainers had been holding some of our
>>> development because of their lack of responsiveness, so we did not want
>>> to end-up creating the same (potential) situation here with centralized
>>> pull requests
>>>
>>> - there is little to no code sharing happening within mach-bcm, so you
>>> would typically only have to merge the Makefile and Kconfig portions
>>>
>>> That said, I still have no problems sending grouped pull requests if you
>>> prefer this model (that is sending all broadcom related pull requests
>>> through one maintainer).
>>
>> I will get all the Broadcom changes routed through a single pull request
>> model, let me know if you want that to change in the future.
>
> Sorry, forgot to reply earlier.
>
> I think that would be preferred by us, yes.
>
> Even though there's little code sharing, there's still the need to
> train new maintainers on what we prefer and not, which we'd then push
> one level further in the maintainer graph for better scaling. :)

Florian: will you handle these pull requests then? Can you share some
git tree we can track?

-- 
Rafał