On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 04:49:36PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Shobhit Kumar <shobhit.kumar at intel.com> >> wrote: >> >> > In case we unload and load a driver module again that is registering a >> > lookup table, without this it will result in multiple entries. Provide >> > an option to remove the lookup table on driver unload >> > >> > v2: Ccing maintainers >> > >> > Cc: Samuel Ortiz <sameo at linux.intel.com> >> > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at linaro.org> >> > Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou at gmail.com> >> > Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding at gmail.com> >> > Reviewed-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot at nvidia.com> >> > Signed-off-by: Shobhit Kumar <shobhit.kumar at intel.com> >> >> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at linaro.org> > > I think the gpio/pwm and mfd parts would all need to go in through the > same tree. i915 parts are decoupled. I guess I could do a branch with just > those patches, tag it and then send a pull request to all 3 subsystems > once it's reviewed. Would that be ok?
That's an immutable branch I guess, and yeah I think it's OK. I usually only pull these in if/when there are conflicts in -next. Yours, Linus Walleij
