On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pi...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Wed, 11 May 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > >> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:44:49PM +0200, Grant Likely wrote: >> > Right now it merges cleanly with linux-next and the resulting tree >> > builds and boots at least on qemu. Unless you really object, I'm >> > going to ask Stephen to add the following branch to the /end/ of the >> > list of trees for linux-next so it can easily be dropped it if it >> > causes any problems. >> >> As far as the set of five patches looks fine to me, I don't have any >> objections against them. So I think we can merge them for .40.
Yay! Thanks Russell! >> What I've always worried about is the platform stuff, and that's >> something I'm going to continue worrying about because I don't think >> we have sufficient review capacity to ensure that we don't end up >> with lots of stupidities. Understood, and I agree to a point, but I'm cautiously optimistic that the review process we talked about heavily this week will be able to push back on bad bindings to prevent a lot of these problems. It also helps that we we can cut over to device tree in board ports in stages without needing a change-everything-flag-day. Devices can be converted one by one, which will limit the volume of stuff that needs to be reviewed at one time. > DT is certainly not a silver bullet. Good judgement will be needed as > to what is put in DT and how it is represented. I don't think that it > would make things worse than they are now though. +1 > I also do have some concerns about some aspects of DT which I've > expressed several times in the past. However I don't think holding back > those patches any longer is a solution though. > > So consider this as a ACK from my part to merge those patches now. This > will get the ball rolling. Thanks Nicolas. g. _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
