Hi Hans-Christian,
On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:04:35 +0100
Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Around Fri 24 Feb 2017 09:55:09 +0100 or thereabout, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:52:09 +0100
> > Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Around Fri 24 Feb 2017 09:27:42 +0100 or thereabout, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:14:30 +0100 Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> Around Thu 23 Feb 2017 21:18:13 -0800 or thereabout, Håvard Skinnemoen wrote:
> >> >> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Alexandre Belloni
> >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> On 21/02/2017 at 18:43:35 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>
> >> <snipp>
> >>
> >> >> >> If nobody complains about the 4.10 breakage, You'll have plenty of time
> >> >> >> to remove it for 4.12
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm fine with that, but I haven't put much effort into keeping it
> >> >> > alive lately. If Hans-Christian agrees, I'm willing to post a patch to
> >> >> > remove it, or ack someone else's patch.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then lets plan this for 4.12, either you Håvard whip up a patch or I can
> >> >> eventually do it.
> >> >>
> >> >> I can push it through the linux-avr32 git tree on kernel.org.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Can you do that just after 4.11-rc1 is released and provide a topic
> >> > branch I can pull in my nand/next branch, so that I can rework this
> >> > patch and drop all the pdata-compat code (as suggested by Andy).
> >>
> >> OK, I will try to prepare it during the weekend.
> >>
> >> Any reason to wait for 4.11-rc1? AFAIK Linus prefers the larger changes
> >> before he starts tagging rc's.
> >>
> >
> > Oh, so you want to queue it for 4.11, that's even better.
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood you, by after 4.11-rc1 you mean queue it for 4.12?
>
> I will see what I get around to do in the weekend, it should be pretty
> straightforward, just want to make sure we remove all the bits.
>
Any progress on this? I plan to send a new version of this series soon
and I'd like to know if I should drop pdata/avr32 support or not. Note
that I'm targeting 4.12, so, as long as you drop avr32 support in 4.12
we should be good.
Thanks,
Boris
Around Wed 01 Mar 2017 09:22:24 +0100 or thereabout, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Hans-Christian,
>
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:04:35 +0100
> Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Around Fri 24 Feb 2017 09:55:09 +0100 or thereabout, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:52:09 +0100
>> > Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Around Fri 24 Feb 2017 09:27:42 +0100 or thereabout, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:14:30 +0100 Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> Around Thu 23 Feb 2017 21:18:13 -0800 or thereabout, H?vard Skinnemoen wrote:
>> >> >> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Alexandre Belloni
>> >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 21/02/2017 at 18:43:35 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snipp>
>> >>
>> >> >> >> If nobody complains about the 4.10 breakage, You'll have plenty of time
>> >> >> >> to remove it for 4.12
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm fine with that, but I haven't put much effort into keeping it
>> >> >> > alive lately. If Hans-Christian agrees, I'm willing to post a patch to
>> >> >> > remove it, or ack someone else's patch.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then lets plan this for 4.12, either you H?vard whip up a patch or I can
>> >> >> eventually do it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I can push it through the linux-avr32 git tree on kernel.org.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Can you do that just after 4.11-rc1 is released and provide a topic
>> >> > branch I can pull in my nand/next branch, so that I can rework this
>> >> > patch and drop all the pdata-compat code (as suggested by Andy).
>> >>
>> >> OK, I will try to prepare it during the weekend.
>> >>
>> >> Any reason to wait for 4.11-rc1? AFAIK Linus prefers the larger changes
>> >> before he starts tagging rc's.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Oh, so you want to queue it for 4.11, that's even better.
>>
>> Perhaps I misunderstood you, by after 4.11-rc1 you mean queue it for 4.12?
>>
>> I will see what I get around to do in the weekend, it should be pretty
>> straightforward, just want to make sure we remove all the bits.
>>
>
> Any progress on this? I plan to send a new version of this series soon
> and I'd like to know if I should drop pdata/avr32 support or not. Note
> that I'm targeting 4.12, so, as long as you drop avr32 support in 4.12
> we should be good.
I got around to make the patch series during the weekend, but I thought it
would be a good idea sending them to the kernel mailing list as a FYI.
Also, I was unsure if I should send the driver removals through the
sub-maintainers trees, or if I can push them through linux-avr32 tree.
I have a patch removing the pata driver for AVR32.
--
mvh
Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 09:38:07 +0100
Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Around Wed 01 Mar 2017 09:22:24 +0100 or thereabout, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Hans-Christian,
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:04:35 +0100
> > Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Around Fri 24 Feb 2017 09:55:09 +0100 or thereabout, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:52:09 +0100
> >> > Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> Around Fri 24 Feb 2017 09:27:42 +0100 or thereabout, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >> >> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:14:30 +0100 Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> Around Thu 23 Feb 2017 21:18:13 -0800 or thereabout, Håvard Skinnemoen wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Alexandre Belloni
> >> >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 21/02/2017 at 18:43:35 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> <snipp>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> If nobody complains about the 4.10 breakage, You'll have plenty of time
> >> >> >> >> to remove it for 4.12
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I'm fine with that, but I haven't put much effort into keeping it
> >> >> >> > alive lately. If Hans-Christian agrees, I'm willing to post a patch to
> >> >> >> > remove it, or ack someone else's patch.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Then lets plan this for 4.12, either you Håvard whip up a patch or I can
> >> >> >> eventually do it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I can push it through the linux-avr32 git tree on kernel.org.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Can you do that just after 4.11-rc1 is released and provide a topic
> >> >> > branch I can pull in my nand/next branch, so that I can rework this
> >> >> > patch and drop all the pdata-compat code (as suggested by Andy).
> >> >>
> >> >> OK, I will try to prepare it during the weekend.
> >> >>
> >> >> Any reason to wait for 4.11-rc1? AFAIK Linus prefers the larger changes
> >> >> before he starts tagging rc's.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Oh, so you want to queue it for 4.11, that's even better.
> >>
> >> Perhaps I misunderstood you, by after 4.11-rc1 you mean queue it for 4.12?
> >>
> >> I will see what I get around to do in the weekend, it should be pretty
> >> straightforward, just want to make sure we remove all the bits.
> >>
> >
> > Any progress on this? I plan to send a new version of this series soon
> > and I'd like to know if I should drop pdata/avr32 support or not. Note
> > that I'm targeting 4.12, so, as long as you drop avr32 support in 4.12
> > we should be good.
>
> I got around to make the patch series during the weekend, but I thought it
> would be a good idea sending them to the kernel mailing list as a FYI.
Definitely.
>
> Also, I was unsure if I should send the driver removals through the
> sub-maintainers trees, or if I can push them through linux-avr32 tree.
I think it should go through the sub-maintainers trees, but I guess you
can remove the arch code without breaking the build, so it shouldn't be
a problem if drivers removal don't go through the avr32 tree.
>
> I have a patch removing the pata driver for AVR32.
>
Great! Just send everything to the MLs (and relevant maintainers).
Thanks,
Boris