Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1540162 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] spi-nor: Add support for Intel SPI serial flash controller

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] spi-nor: Add support for Intel SPI serial flash  controller Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2016-12-12 09:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] spi-nor: Add support for Intel SPI serial flash  controller Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 12:50 +0100

#1540162 — Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] spi-nor: Add support for Intel SPI serial flash controller

On Fri, 09 Dec 2016, Marek Vasut wrote:

> On 12/09/2016 01:25 PM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 08:57:53AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> >> On Wed, 07 Dec 2016, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 12/07/2016 09:53 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:45:25AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> >>>>> I'm happy either way.  However if you take them, I will require a
> >>>>> pull-request to an immutable branch containing only these patches.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If I take them, it won't be until v4.11, since we are half way though
> >>>>> -rc8 already and I would like them to soak in -next for at least a
> >>>>> couple of weeks.
> >>>>
> >>>> This series already missed v4.8 and v4.9 so I don't think there is a
> >>>> rush to get it for v4.10 either ;-) I'm fine if it goes for v4.11.
> >>>
> >>> Hmmmmmmmmmmm, that kinda sucks. Lee, are you positive this isn't 4.10
> >>> material ?
> >>
> >> The merge-window opens in 2 days.
> >>
> >> As I mentioned, I like patches to reside in -next for at least 1 maybe
> >> 2 RC cycles before merging.  It's far to easy to accept code, then get
> >> bitten if/when it breaks after being merged by Linus.
> > 
> > I agree. Better to give it some time in linux-next.
> > 
> > Can you queue this series for v4.11?
> 
> OK, I'm fine with this.

Yes, no problem.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1541016

On 12/12/2016 08:54 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2016, Marek Vasut wrote:
> 
>> On 12/09/2016 01:25 PM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 08:57:53AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 07 Dec 2016, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/07/2016 09:53 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:45:25AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm happy either way.  However if you take them, I will require a
>>>>>>> pull-request to an immutable branch containing only these patches.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I take them, it won't be until v4.11, since we are half way though
>>>>>>> -rc8 already and I would like them to soak in -next for at least a
>>>>>>> couple of weeks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This series already missed v4.8 and v4.9 so I don't think there is a
>>>>>> rush to get it for v4.10 either ;-) I'm fine if it goes for v4.11.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmmmmmmmmmm, that kinda sucks. Lee, are you positive this isn't 4.10
>>>>> material ?
>>>>
>>>> The merge-window opens in 2 days.
>>>>
>>>> As I mentioned, I like patches to reside in -next for at least 1 maybe
>>>> 2 RC cycles before merging.  It's far to easy to accept code, then get
>>>> bitten if/when it breaks after being merged by Linus.
>>>
>>> I agree. Better to give it some time in linux-next.
>>>
>>> Can you queue this series for v4.11?
>>
>> OK, I'm fine with this.
> 
> Yes, no problem.
> 
Cool, thanks !

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web