On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 15:02 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Or shall we wait until we are bumping for some other reason?
> [...]
>
> Can do. In which case: apply them, test the result and then comment
> them out in series/base with a leading comment that they're to be
> enabled at the next ABI bu
On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 12:45 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-04-08 at 21:17 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sun, 2012-04-08 at 11:25 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > > * Ian Campbell [2012-04-08 11:10]:
> > > > These Dreamplug patches add DT support for kirkwood in a way which is
> >
On Sun, 2012-04-08 at 21:17 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-04-08 at 11:25 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > * Ian Campbell [2012-04-08 11:10]:
> > > These Dreamplug patches add DT support for kirkwood in a way which is
> > > designed not to interfere with existing non-DT platforms and
On Sun, 2012-04-08 at 11:25 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Ian Campbell [2012-04-08 11:10]:
> > These Dreamplug patches add DT support for kirkwood in a way which is
> > designed not to interfere with existing non-DT platforms and more
> > generally upstream has done things in a way that FDT a
* Ian Campbell [2012-04-08 11:10]:
> These Dreamplug patches add DT support for kirkwood in a way which is
> designed not to interfere with existing non-DT platforms and more
> generally upstream has done things in a way that FDT and ATAG platforms
> can safely be supported using the same kernel i
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 15:09 +0100, Arnaud Patard wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 07:39 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >> An initial set of patches for the Dreamplug (basically a descendant of
> >> shivaplug, guruplug etc, see [0]) have been accepted into the ARM SoC
> >>
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 15:09 +0100, Arnaud Patard wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 07:39 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >> An initial set of patches for the Dreamplug (basically a descendant of
> >> shivaplug, guruplug etc, see [0]) have been accepted into the ARM SoC
> >>
Ben Hutchings writes:
> On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 07:39 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> An initial set of patches for the Dreamplug (basically a descendant of
>> shivaplug, guruplug etc, see [0]) have been accepted into the ARM SoC
>> maintainer's tree.
>>
>> Would it be acceptable to backport these t
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 02:57 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 07:39 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > An initial set of patches for the Dreamplug (basically a descendant of
> > shivaplug, guruplug etc, see [0]) have been accepted into the ARM SoC
> > maintainer's tree.
> >
> > Would
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 07:39 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> An initial set of patches for the Dreamplug (basically a descendant of
> shivaplug, guruplug etc, see [0]) have been accepted into the ARM SoC
> maintainer's tree.
>
> Would it be acceptable to backport these to the Wheezy kernel? I'm happy
An initial set of patches for the Dreamplug (basically a descendant of
shivaplug, guruplug etc, see [0]) have been accepted into the ARM SoC
maintainer's tree.
Would it be acceptable to backport these to the Wheezy kernel? I'm happy
to do the backporting and test them etc. I recently started runni
11 matches
Mail list logo
