Hello Arnd, On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 02:11:41PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 19 November 2013, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > I'd like to get patch 4 (ARM: new platform for Energy Micro's EFM32 > > Cortex-M3 SoCs) in. In the state as it was sent here it build depends on > > patches 1 - 3. Patches 2 and 3 are in Russell's patch tracker (7890/1 > > and 7889/1). What do you think about patch 1? Some of the > > NEED_MACH_TIMEX_H are already fixed by patches that I sent out. The > > options here are: > > > > - rework patch 4 to not depend on patch 1 (easy) > > - merge v5 of patch 1 (which is conservative, i.e. introduces > > more NEED_MACH_TIMEX_H as probably will be needed in 3.14-rc1 > > and fix up later) > > These both sound fine to me in retrospect, unless someone has objections. > I would prefer the Kconfig solution I suggested (with the help text > fixed to address Russell's objections, and the list of platforms changed > to match your v4 patch), but I don't want to force you to go through > more revisions for this. I think with all my patches only 2 or 3 platforms are left that need timex.h. (Note this is a related but still different problem to the gettimeoffset stuff.) And I plan to get rid of it again for 3.15-rc1, so not needing to rework it sounds right to me. > > - depend on all sent patches and coordinate accordingly (at > > least: watchdog, clocksource, rtc). > > > > I'd prefer the 2nd option as I didn't get Acks on all patches needed for > > the third. What do you think? > > Makes sense. It would be nice to still follow up on those patches > and merge them eventually. Sure. > > Russell, if you are happy with patches 2 and 3 and would apply them to > > your tree I could prepare a branch for the arm-soc people to pull which > > bases on your tree and has patch 1 (v5). > > Did you get in touch with Jonathan about the patch set to make ARMv7-M > support coexist with multiplatform? I think that would be the best > solution in the long run, and IIRC there were no more objections at the > ARM mini summit to the draft patch. Yeah, the previous revision used multiarch. I dropped it because of objections from Russell. It's only some Kconfig shuffling away to use it again. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel