| Message ID | 20111102155803.GE7136@game.jcrosoft.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
HI, when do you pull this one? can it go to the 3.2? Best Regards, J. On 16:58 Wed 02 Nov , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > HI, > > this a split of the previous pull request that containt only the > defconfig > > the gpio part will for 3.3 > > this pull request will introduce a defconfig per soc with all machine > enabled (today we can not compile multiple soc together we work on it) > > This will allow us to check that we break no board > > Please pull > The following changes since commit 5430cfc583fd8ec5e1bb2d211de29b23743122e4: > > at91: at91-ohci: configure overcurrent pins as input GPIOs (2011-09-07 17:15:19 +0200) > > are available in the git repository at: > git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git j/for-arnd-defconfig > > Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD (4): > ARM: at91: rename at91sam9rlek_defconfig to at91sam9rl_defconfig > ARM: at91: rename at91cap9adk_defconfig to at91cap9_defconfig > ARM: at91: rename at91sam9g20ek_defconfig to at91sam9g20_defconfig > ARM: at91: rename at91sam9260ek_defconfig to at91sam9260_defconfig > > .../{at91cap9adk_defconfig => at91cap9_defconfig} | 5 ----- > ...91sam9260ek_defconfig => at91sam9260_defconfig} | 14 ++++++++++---- > ...91sam9g20ek_defconfig => at91sam9g20_defconfig} | 19 ++++++++++--------- > ...at91sam9rlek_defconfig => at91sam9rl_defconfig} | 5 ----- > 4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > rename arch/arm/configs/{at91cap9adk_defconfig => at91cap9_defconfig} (95%) > rename arch/arm/configs/{at91sam9260ek_defconfig => at91sam9260_defconfig} (89%) > rename arch/arm/configs/{at91sam9g20ek_defconfig => at91sam9g20_defconfig} (93%) > rename arch/arm/configs/{at91sam9rlek_defconfig => at91sam9rl_defconfig} (94%) > > Best Regarfds, > J.
Hi, On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: > when do you pull this one? > > can it go to the 3.2? Arnd is offline most of this week, so I'll reply. The merge window is closed and only bug fixes should be sent upstream at this time, so this should go into a 3.3-targeted branch now. The pull request was sent halfway through the merge window, which to be strict means that it was already too late. Next time, please make sure your branches are staged in the arm-soc tree before the window opens, ideally around -rc6 or -rc7 time frame. -Olof
On 08:01 Wed 09 Nov , Olof Johansson wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: > > > when do you pull this one? > > > > can it go to the 3.2? > > Arnd is offline most of this week, so I'll reply. > > The merge window is closed and only bug fixes should be sent upstream > at this time, so this should go into a 3.3-targeted branch now. > > The pull request was sent halfway through the merge window, which to > be strict means that it was already too late. Next time, please make > sure your branches are staged in the arm-soc tree before the window > opens, ideally around -rc6 or -rc7 time frame. the pull was send first before the release of 3.1 originaly it's a resend of the previous one split in 2 pull so was suposed to be merged before Best Regards, J.
On 01:37 Thu 10 Nov , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 08:01 Wed 09 Nov , Olof Johansson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > > <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: > > > > > when do you pull this one? > > > > > > can it go to the 3.2? > > > > Arnd is offline most of this week, so I'll reply. > > > > The merge window is closed and only bug fixes should be sent upstream > > at this time, so this should go into a 3.3-targeted branch now. > > > > The pull request was sent halfway through the merge window, which to > > be strict means that it was already too late. Next time, please make > > sure your branches are staged in the arm-soc tree before the window > > opens, ideally around -rc6 or -rc7 time frame. > the pull was send first before the release of 3.1 originaly it's a resend of > the previous one split in 2 pull > > so was suposed to be merged before I forget to mention it but there was an agreement with arnd durring the kernel summit to pull the defconfig part and let the gpio go for 3.3 Best Regards. J.
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: > On 01:37 Thu 10 Nov , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: >> On 08:01 Wed 09 Nov , Olof Johansson wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD >> > <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: >> > >> > > when do you pull this one? >> > > >> > > can it go to the 3.2? >> > >> > Arnd is offline most of this week, so I'll reply. >> > >> > The merge window is closed and only bug fixes should be sent upstream >> > at this time, so this should go into a 3.3-targeted branch now. >> > >> > The pull request was sent halfway through the merge window, which to >> > be strict means that it was already too late. Next time, please make >> > sure your branches are staged in the arm-soc tree before the window >> > opens, ideally around -rc6 or -rc7 time frame. >> the pull was send first before the release of 3.1 originaly it's a resend of >> the previous one split in 2 pull >> >> so was suposed to be merged before > I forget to mention it but there was an agreement with arnd durring the kernel > summit to pull the defconfig part and let the gpio go for 3.3 Ok. I'll defer to Arnd when he's back next week then! Thanks, -Olof
On 11/10/2011 02:35 AM, Olof Johansson : > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: >> On 01:37 Thu 10 Nov , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: >>> On 08:01 Wed 09 Nov , Olof Johansson wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD >>>> <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> when do you pull this one? >>>>> >>>>> can it go to the 3.2? >>>> >>>> Arnd is offline most of this week, so I'll reply. >>>> >>>> The merge window is closed and only bug fixes should be sent upstream >>>> at this time, so this should go into a 3.3-targeted branch now. >>>> >>>> The pull request was sent halfway through the merge window, which to >>>> be strict means that it was already too late. Next time, please make >>>> sure your branches are staged in the arm-soc tree before the window >>>> opens, ideally around -rc6 or -rc7 time frame. >>> the pull was send first before the release of 3.1 originaly it's a resend of >>> the previous one split in 2 pull >>> >>> so was suposed to be merged before >> I forget to mention it but there was an agreement with arnd durring the kernel >> summit to pull the defconfig part and let the gpio go for 3.3 > > Ok. I'll defer to Arnd when he's back next week then! Arnd, ping? Best regards,
On Wednesday 23 November 2011, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > On 11/10/2011 02:35 AM, Olof Johansson : > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > > <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: > >> On 01:37 Thu 10 Nov , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > >>> On 08:01 Wed 09 Nov , Olof Johansson wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > >>>> <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> when do you pull this one? > >>>>> > >>>>> can it go to the 3.2? > >>>> > >>>> Arnd is offline most of this week, so I'll reply. > >>>> > >>>> The merge window is closed and only bug fixes should be sent upstream > >>>> at this time, so this should go into a 3.3-targeted branch now. > >>>> > >>>> The pull request was sent halfway through the merge window, which to > >>>> be strict means that it was already too late. Next time, please make > >>>> sure your branches are staged in the arm-soc tree before the window > >>>> opens, ideally around -rc6 or -rc7 time frame. > >>> the pull was send first before the release of 3.1 originaly it's a resend of > >>> the previous one split in 2 pull > >>> > >>> so was suposed to be merged before > >> I forget to mention it but there was an agreement with arnd durring the kernel > >> summit to pull the defconfig part and let the gpio go for 3.3 > > > > Ok. I'll defer to Arnd when he's back next week then! > > Arnd, ping? Sorry for the delay in replying. I looked at git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git j/for-arnd-defconfig again, and the changes in there do not match the description, so I'm not pulling them like this: 1. The series was not rebased to leave out the gpio patches, the HEAD of the branch still contains them. 2. The patches are described as 'rename ...config to ...config', but they actually modify the files as well. 3. There are in fact merge conflicts against 3.2-rc2. I can still take the changes, but please rebase them. It would also be better to split the patches on functional changes, instead of per file, and make sure that each patch only does what the description says, like: * ARM: at91: enable additional boards in existing defconfig files * ARM: at91: refresh defconfig files for 3.2 * ARM: at91: rename defconfig files appropriately Arnd
On 21:15 Wed 23 Nov , Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 23 November 2011, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > > On 11/10/2011 02:35 AM, Olof Johansson : > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > > > <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: > > >> On 01:37 Thu 10 Nov , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > >>> On 08:01 Wed 09 Nov , Olof Johansson wrote: > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > > >>>> <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> when do you pull this one? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> can it go to the 3.2? > > >>>> > > >>>> Arnd is offline most of this week, so I'll reply. > > >>>> > > >>>> The merge window is closed and only bug fixes should be sent upstream > > >>>> at this time, so this should go into a 3.3-targeted branch now. > > >>>> > > >>>> The pull request was sent halfway through the merge window, which to > > >>>> be strict means that it was already too late. Next time, please make > > >>>> sure your branches are staged in the arm-soc tree before the window > > >>>> opens, ideally around -rc6 or -rc7 time frame. > > >>> the pull was send first before the release of 3.1 originaly it's a resend of > > >>> the previous one split in 2 pull > > >>> > > >>> so was suposed to be merged before > > >> I forget to mention it but there was an agreement with arnd durring the kernel > > >> summit to pull the defconfig part and let the gpio go for 3.3 > > > > > > Ok. I'll defer to Arnd when he's back next week then! > > > > Arnd, ping? > > Sorry for the delay in replying. > > I looked at > > git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git j/for-arnd-defconfig > > again, and the changes in there do not match the description, so I'm not > pulling them like this: > > 1. The series was not rebased to leave out the gpio patches, the HEAD of > the branch still contains them. the series does leave the gpio work it's containt just the work on the usb that was already merged in the tree the gpio work is in an other pull request for 3.3 > > 2. The patches are described as 'rename ...config to ...config', but they > actually modify the files as well. yes as described in the commit the enable all boards at the same time when it's needed > > 3. There are in fact merge conflicts against 3.2-rc2. ?? > > I can still take the changes, but please rebase them. It would also be > better to split the patches on functional changes, instead of per file, > and make sure that each patch only does what the description says, like: > > * ARM: at91: enable additional boards in existing defconfig files > * ARM: at91: refresh defconfig files for 3.2 > * ARM: at91: rename defconfig files appropriately ok will send later today Best Regards, J.
rename all Atmel reference board as soc defconfig
Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
Cc: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
.../{at91cap9adk_defconfig => at91cap9_defconfig} | 0
...91sam9260ek_defconfig => at91sam9260_defconfig} | 0
...91sam9g20ek_defconfig => at91sam9g20_defconfig} | 0
...at91sam9rlek_defconfig => at91sam9rl_defconfig} | 0
4 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
rename arch/arm/configs/{at91cap9adk_defconfig => at91cap9_defconfig} (100%)
rename arch/arm/configs/{at91sam9260ek_defconfig => at91sam9260_defconfig} (100%)
rename arch/arm/configs/{at91sam9g20ek_defconfig => at91sam9g20_defconfig} (100%)
rename arch/arm/configs/{at91sam9rlek_defconfig => at91sam9rl_defconfig} (100%)
diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/at91cap9adk_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/at91cap9_defconfig
similarity index 100%
rename from arch/arm/configs/at91cap9adk_defconfig
rename to arch/arm/configs/at91cap9_defconfig
diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/at91sam9260ek_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/at91sam9260_defconfig
similarity index 100%
rename from arch/arm/configs/at91sam9260ek_defconfig
rename to arch/arm/configs/at91sam9260_defconfig
diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/at91sam9g20ek_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/at91sam9g20_defconfig
similarity index 100%
rename from arch/arm/configs/at91sam9g20ek_defconfig
rename to arch/arm/configs/at91sam9g20_defconfig
diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/at91sam9rlek_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/at91sam9rl_defconfig
similarity index 100%
rename from arch/arm/configs/at91sam9rlek_defconfig
rename to arch/arm/configs/at91sam9rl_defconfig
On Thursday 24 November 2011, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > Hi, > > this a split of the previous pull request that containt onlythe > defconfig > > the gpio part will for 3.2 > > this pull request will introduce a defconfig per soc with all machine > enabled (today we can not compile multiple soc together we work on it) > > This will allow us to check that we break no board > > v2: > update patch as sugested by Arnd Ok, pulled into 'fixes' now. I ended up rebasing to v3.2-rc2 to have a clean base instead of a random point between rc2 and rc3. Arnd
HI, this a split of the previous pull request that containt only the defconfig the gpio part will for 3.3 this pull request will introduce a defconfig per soc with all machine enabled (today we can not compile multiple soc together we work on it) This will allow us to check that we break no board Please pull The following changes since commit 5430cfc583fd8ec5e1bb2d211de29b23743122e4: at91: at91-ohci: configure overcurrent pins as input GPIOs (2011-09-07 17:15:19 +0200) are available in the git repository at: git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git j/for-arnd-defconfig Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD (4): ARM: at91: rename at91sam9rlek_defconfig to at91sam9rl_defconfig ARM: at91: rename at91cap9adk_defconfig to at91cap9_defconfig ARM: at91: rename at91sam9g20ek_defconfig to at91sam9g20_defconfig ARM: at91: rename at91sam9260ek_defconfig to at91sam9260_defconfig .../{at91cap9adk_defconfig => at91cap9_defconfig} | 5 ----- ...91sam9260ek_defconfig => at91sam9260_defconfig} | 14 ++++++++++---- ...91sam9g20ek_defconfig => at91sam9g20_defconfig} | 19 ++++++++++--------- ...at91sam9rlek_defconfig => at91sam9rl_defconfig} | 5 ----- 4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) rename arch/arm/configs/{at91cap9adk_defconfig => at91cap9_defconfig} (95%) rename arch/arm/configs/{at91sam9260ek_defconfig => at91sam9260_defconfig} (89%) rename arch/arm/configs/{at91sam9g20ek_defconfig => at91sam9g20_defconfig} (93%) rename arch/arm/configs/{at91sam9rlek_defconfig => at91sam9rl_defconfig} (94%) Best Regarfds, J.