[GIT PULL] ste_dma40 updates for 3.9

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:14:50AM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:53:05AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Olof Johansson [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

This series of patches only modify the ste_dma40 driver, there are no
corresponding changes under arch/arm that need to be coordinated or
considered w.r.t. merge conflicts. I.e. they all seem nicely isolated
to only the driver.

So is there a specific reason for why these shouldn't just go in
through the dmaengine tree?

One reason would be if there are DMA bindings to device tree coming
this merge window, as I'm told, and it implicates a lot of platform code
changes on top of this as we adopt to it.

But maybe this will be wholly confined to the DMAengine tree?

Changing platform code in the driver trees is asking for conflicts at
merge time and a grumpy Linus, I'd prefer to merge arch/arm/* through
arm-soc in that case.

Either way, this branch can be merged into dmaengine as a branch pull,
and if needed we can bring it in as a dependency on arm-soc. We would
need the same for the dmaengine DT bindings branch as a base. Of course,
that requires that Vinod doesn't rebase his branch and keeps the merge
intact. Vinod, is that compatible with your workflow?

Yes it is.

Is this series dependent on dmaengine dt-bindings. If so then it wont apply to
arm tree. Btw I dont mind it getting merged to any of the trees as long as we
keep dependecies and avoid major conflicts :)

--
~Vinod