| Message ID | 1347016499-29354-11-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > These properties have no place here as the populated nodes are > not related to GPIO Controllers. > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> Squash this into the previous patch adding them... I think Arnd already noted. Yours, Linus Walleij
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:12:23AM -0700, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > These properties have no place here as the populated nodes are > > not related to GPIO Controllers. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> > > Squash this into the previous patch adding them... > I think Arnd already noted. Well he noted that I'd duplicated the error from the snowball.dts file, then rectified in this patch, which is fair enough. However, I don't think the snowball.dts fix should be squashed into an HREF enablement patch, and I can't find a suitable patch in the patch- set where it would really fit. Should I leave the Snowball fix separate and just fixup the HREF .dts file to never duplicate the anomaly?
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:12:23AM -0700, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> > These properties have no place here as the populated nodes are >> > not related to GPIO Controllers. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> >> >> Squash this into the previous patch adding them... >> I think Arnd already noted. > > Well he noted that I'd duplicated the error from the snowball.dts > file, then rectified in this patch, which is fair enough. However, > I don't think the snowball.dts fix should be squashed into an HREF > enablement patch, and I can't find a suitable patch in the patch- > set where it would really fit. Should I leave the Snowball fix > separate and just fixup the HREF .dts file to never duplicate the > anomaly? No you're right, this should be separate. I was confused that it was in the same patch set, I would suggest just sending this one on it's own as a snowball fix fair and square, and have ARM SoC push it to the -rcs as a regression fix, but your choice. Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Yours, Linus Walleij
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/hrefv60plus.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/hrefv60plus.dts index 49bdabd..7f0dddb 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/hrefv60plus.dts +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/hrefv60plus.dts @@ -42,7 +42,6 @@ mmc-cap-mmc-highspeed; vmmc-supply = <&ab8500_ldo_aux3_reg>; - #gpio-cells = <1>; cd-gpios = <&gpio2 31 0x4>; // 95 status = "okay"; diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/snowball.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/snowball.dts index 2969997..702c0ba 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/snowball.dts +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/snowball.dts @@ -127,7 +127,6 @@ mmc-cap-mmc-highspeed; vmmc-supply = <&ab8500_ldo_aux3_reg>; - #gpio-cells = <1>; cd-gpios = <&gpio6 26 0x4>; // 218 cd-inverted;
These properties have no place here as the populated nodes are not related to GPIO Controllers. Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> --- arch/arm/boot/dts/hrefv60plus.dts | 1 - arch/arm/boot/dts/snowball.dts | 1 - 2 files changed, 2 deletions(-)