On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 08:57:53AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > On Wed, 07 Dec 2016, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > On 12/07/2016 09:53 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:45:25AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > >> I'm happy either way. However if you take them, I will require a > > >> pull-request to an immutable branch containing only these patches. > > >> > > >> If I take them, it won't be until v4.11, since we are half way though > > >> -rc8 already and I would like them to soak in -next for at least a > > >> couple of weeks. > > > > > > This series already missed v4.8 and v4.9 so I don't think there is a > > > rush to get it for v4.10 either ;-) I'm fine if it goes for v4.11. > > > > Hmmmmmmmmmmm, that kinda sucks. Lee, are you positive this isn't 4.10 > > material ? > > The merge-window opens in 2 days. > > As I mentioned, I like patches to reside in -next for at least 1 maybe > 2 RC cycles before merging. It's far to easy to accept code, then get > bitten if/when it breaks after being merged by Linus.
I agree. Better to give it some time in linux-next. Can you queue this series for v4.11?
