Message ID | CAMbhsRQoZ7vJGchkXLUOrOH4rpKJzJe-iGvLjTfBmz4R=8HtVw@mail.gmail.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On Friday 15 July 2011, Colin Cross wrote: > Please pull Tegra updates from: > > git://android.git.kernel.org/kernel/tegra.git for-next > > Mostly peripheral support in existing boards, but also a few fixes and > code reduction. > Hi Colin, I've browsed over the patches, and I had the impression that there are still a number of issues that should be resolved before I pull this. Specifically, what I noticed is: * The cpufreq driver should now live in drivers/cpufreq/ * The DMA driver uses its own interface instead of the regular dma-engine API. I don't want to merge any more drivers like this. * The legacy-irq code is essentially dead code, it's not being used anywhere. My impression is that it would need to look differently if you actually want to use it. * The pinmux code is getting largely replaced with new code, but the new version does not use the new pinmux API from Linus Walleij. * The commit named "[ARM] tegra: clock: Add dvfs support, bug fixes, and cleanups" puts a lot of stuff into a single patch that doesn't even belong into the same pull request. I would very much like to at least pull the cleanups and bug fixes, but it doesn't work like this, sorry. Please remove the controversial patches and submit separate pull requests for the bug fixes and cleanups. It's probably a good idea to also have the patches that add features reviewed on the mailing lists again and then decide how to proceed with each one.. Arnd
On Friday 15 July 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 15 July 2011, Colin Cross wrote: > > Please pull Tegra updates from: > > > > git://android.git.kernel.org/kernel/tegra.git for-next > > > > Mostly peripheral support in existing boards, but also a few fixes and > > code reduction. Hi Colin, Sorry about the first message. I accidentally looked at the tegra/for-next branch, not at for-next, so the stuff I commented on is very historic and has been merged a few releases ago. The stuff you sent now does look very good. It would still be better to reorganize it into separate branches next time, but it's small enough overall that I'll just merge it as one for this release. Again, sorry if my first message caused any trouble. Arnd > Hi Colin, > > I've browsed over the patches, and I had the impression that there are > still a number of issues that should be resolved before I pull this. > > Specifically, what I noticed is: > > * The cpufreq driver should now live in drivers/cpufreq/ > * The DMA driver uses its own interface instead of the regular > dma-engine API. I don't want to merge any more drivers like this. > * The legacy-irq code is essentially dead code, it's not being used > anywhere. My impression is that it would need to look differently > if you actually want to use it. > * The pinmux code is getting largely replaced with new code, but > the new version does not use the new pinmux API from Linus Walleij. > * The commit named "[ARM] tegra: clock: Add dvfs support, bug fixes, > and cleanups" puts a lot of stuff into a single patch that doesn't > even belong into the same pull request. > > I would very much like to at least pull the cleanups and bug fixes, > but it doesn't work like this, sorry. > > Please remove the controversial patches and submit separate pull > requests for the bug fixes and cleanups. It's probably a good idea > to also have the patches that add features reviewed on the mailing > lists again and then decide how to proceed with each one.. > > Arnd >
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > On Friday 15 July 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Friday 15 July 2011, Colin Cross wrote: >> > Please pull Tegra updates from: >> > >> > git://android.git.kernel.org/kernel/tegra.git for-next >> > >> > Mostly peripheral support in existing boards, but also a few fixes and >> > code reduction. > > Hi Colin, > > Sorry about the first message. I accidentally looked at the tegra/for-next > branch, not at for-next, so the stuff I commented on is very historic and > has been merged a few releases ago. > > The stuff you sent now does look very good. It would still be better > to reorganize it into separate branches next time, but it's small > enough overall that I'll just merge it as one for this release. > > Again, sorry if my first message caused any trouble. No problem, I'll delete the tegra/for-next branch, it was an old mis-push. If I put it in separate branches in the future, do you want a single pull request for a merge of the branches, or a pull request for each branch?
On Friday 15 July 2011, Colin Cross wrote: > If I put it in separate branches in the future, do you want a single > pull request for a merge of the branches, or a pull request for each > branch? Separate requests. The idea is that I can group them together with similar branches from other platforms and then send a single pull request to Linus for e.g. all fixes, or a specific feature getting added to multiple platforms. The branches that I commonly have for other platforms are 'fixes', 'cleanup', 'devel' and 'board'. If you have a lot of patches, like omap typically has, you can also do more specific feature branches. In the future, I hope to see a lot more device tree work, which should also have its own branch. Arnd