On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 09:38:07 +0100
Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt [off-list ref] wrote:

Around Wed 01 Mar 2017 09:22:24 +0100 or thereabout, Boris Brezillon wrote:

quoted

Hi Hans-Christian,

On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:04:35 +0100
Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt [off-list ref] wrote:
  

quoted

Around Fri 24 Feb 2017 09:55:09 +0100 or thereabout, Boris Brezillon wrote:  

quoted

On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:52:09 +0100
Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt [off-list ref] wrote:    

quoted

Around Fri 24 Feb 2017 09:27:42 +0100 or thereabout, Boris Brezillon wrote:    

quoted

On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:14:30 +0100 Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt [off-list ref] wrote:      

quoted

Around Thu 23 Feb 2017 21:18:13 -0800 or thereabout, H?vard Skinnemoen wrote:      

quoted

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Alexandre Belloni
[off-list ref] wrote:        

quoted

On 21/02/2017 at 18:43:35 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:        

<snipp>
    

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

If nobody complains about the 4.10 breakage, You'll have plenty of time
to remove it for 4.12        

I'm fine with that, but I haven't put much effort into keeping it
alive lately. If Hans-Christian agrees, I'm willing to post a patch to
remove it, or ack someone else's patch.        

Then lets plan this for 4.12, either you H?vard whip up a patch or I can
eventually do it.

I can push it through the linux-avr32 git tree on kernel.org.
      

Can you do that just after 4.11-rc1 is released and provide a topic
branch I can pull in my nand/next branch, so that I can rework this
patch and drop all the pdata-compat code (as suggested by Andy).      

OK, I will try to prepare it during the weekend.

Any reason to wait for 4.11-rc1? AFAIK Linus prefers the larger changes
before he starts tagging rc's.
    

Oh, so you want to queue it for 4.11, that's even better.    

Perhaps I misunderstood you, by after 4.11-rc1 you mean queue it for 4.12?

I will see what I get around to do in the weekend, it should be pretty
straightforward, just want to make sure we remove all the bits.
  

Any progress on this? I plan to send a new version of this series soon
and I'd like to know if I should drop pdata/avr32 support or not. Note
that I'm targeting 4.12, so, as long as you drop avr32 support in 4.12
we should be good.  

I got around to make the patch series during the weekend, but I thought it
would be a good idea sending them to the kernel mailing list as a FYI.

Definitely.

Also, I was unsure if I should send the driver removals through the
sub-maintainers trees, or if I can push them through linux-avr32 tree.

I think it should go through the sub-maintainers trees, but I guess you
can remove the arch code without breaking the build, so it shouldn't be
a problem if drivers removal don't go through the avr32 tree.

I have a patch removing the pata driver for AVR32.

Great! Just send everything to the MLs (and relevant maintainers).

Thanks,

Boris