On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 05:45, Andrew Jeffery <and...@aj.id.au> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, at 10:27, Andrew Jeffery wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, at 07:23, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:13 AM Andrew Jeffery <and...@aj.id.au> wrote: > > > > > > > It's probably best if we push the three patches all through one tree > > > > rather > > > > than fragmenting. Is everyone happy if Joel applies them to the aspeed > > > > tree? > > > > > > If you are sure it will not collide with parallell work in the > > > pinctrl tree, yes. > > > Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org> > > > > > > (If it does collide I'd prefer to take the pinctrl patches and fix the > > > conflicts in my tree.) > > > > Fair enough, I don't know the answer so I'll poke around. I don't > > really mind > > where the series goes in, I just want to avoid landing only part of it > > if I split it up. > > Okay, it currently conflicts with my cleanup-devicetree-warnings series. > > Joel, do you mind if Linus takes this series through the pinctrl tree, given > the fix to the devicetrees is patch 1/3?
It depends if you plan more changes to that part of the device tree this merge window :) Linus, perhaps the safer option is for me to take 1/3 through my tree and you can take the rest through yours? Cheers, Joel
