Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751156AbaK1Ksu (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Nov 2014 05:48:50 -0500 Received: from eusmtp01.atmel.com ([212.144.249.242]:49478 "EHLO eusmtp01.atmel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750890AbaK1Kst (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Nov 2014 05:48:49 -0500 Message-ID: <5478530B.3090102@atmel.com> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:48:43 +0100 From: Nicolas Ferre Organization: atmel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnd Bergmann CC: , Alexandre Belloni , Boris BREZILLON , , "Ludovic Desroches" , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] ARM: at91: remove !DT support for at91rm9200 References: <27354361.uIQEXGDqXb@wuerfel> <54784209.6070003@atmel.com> <2351041.YbSYt1FKtz@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <2351041.YbSYt1FKtz@wuerfel> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.161.30.18] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 28/11/2014 11:25, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 28 November 2014 10:36:09 Nicolas Ferre wrote: >> On 27/11/2014 18:38, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Thursday 27 November 2014 18:12:43 Alexandre Belloni wrote: >>>> On 27/11/2014 at 17:49:50 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote : >>>>> On Thursday 27 November 2014 17:06:28 Nicolas Ferre wrote: >>>>>> This is the last series of patches that removes the non-Device-Tree board >>>>>> support for older Atmel SoCs. >>>>>> Again, for the record, it was announced here >>>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/10/293 ([ANNOUNCE] ARM: at91: removal of board >>>>>> files) two months ago. >>>>>> Several files beyond at91rm9200 are touched this time as I tried to remove the >>>>>> biggest parts that were related to !DT SoC initializations. More cleanup is >>>>>> certainly needed to remove dead code. >>>>>> >>>>>> The diffstat is also pretty big as a lot of at91rm9200 boards were remaining. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Awesome stuff! >>>>> >>>>> Two questions: >>>>> >>>>> - is anything holding this up from getting merged in 3.19? >>>>> >>>> >>>> If you think this is not too late in the cycle, I would say go ahead >>> >>> I'd say we should do it, unless there are last-minute regressions. >> >> Arnd, >> >> I am totally in favor for a merge into 3.19. >> I wanted to wait one day or two but given that the official announce had >> been made several months ago, I don't think it makes a big difference. >> >> So, what do you prefer: >> >> 1/ I wait today and send you the pull-request this evening (our time) >> 2/ I send you the pull-request at the beginning of next week but still >> can make it for 3.19? > > Just send the pull request whenever you have it ready. If some bug shows > up, reply to that mail with an updated pull request. Okay, I do it right now then. Thanks Arnd. >> (BTW, in the meantime, there is a pending pull-request (at91-cleanup3) >> but it is true that you needn't pulling it in if you plan to take this >> one which will be named at91-cleanup4 and that will obviously contain >> the 3rd one). > > Yes, I have a backlog of pull requests to look at, should get to that soon > today. > > Arnd > > -- Nicolas Ferre -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/