Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] ARM: davinci: remove duplicate aemif support

[Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>]

Hi David,

On Monday 06 August 2018 10:05 PM, David Lechner wrote:
> On 07/10/2018 05:19 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On Friday 06 July 2018 11:09 PM, David Lechner wrote:
>>> On 07/04/2018 01:35 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>>> Hi David,
>>>>
>>>> On Monday 02 July 2018 09:02 PM, David Lechner wrote:
>>>>> On 07/02/2018 07:28 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>>>>> Hi David, Stephen,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday 28 June 2018 03:27 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This series moves all aemif/nand users to using the ti-aemif
>>>>>>> platform
>>>>>>> driver located in drivers/memory instead of the older API located in
>>>>>>> mach-davinci.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First five patches add necessary changes to the clock driver. Next
>>>>>>> seven convert the board files to using the ti-aemif driver. Last
>>>>>>> patch
>>>>>>> removes now dead code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you want to handle this series? I can apply the series and
>>>>>> provide you an immutable branch on v4.18-rc1 with the clock patches
>>>>>> applied if that can work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds good to me. But I'm new to this maintainer thing, so maybe
>>>>> there is something to consider that I haven't thought of?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think there is more to it. Ultimately there should not be two
>>>> commits for the same patch. Either you can apply and share the
>>>> commit to
>>>> use or I can do that as well. I am equally fine either way.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Sekhar
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've created a branch for-sekhar at https://github.com/dlech/linux.git
>>> with the clk commits.
>>
>> Thanks. I merged commit f917ff75ac55b6d829c9d1142e83913064565d5b (top of
>> that branch) to my v4.19/soc branch. Please do let Stephen and Mike know
>> about this then when you send your stuff for v4.19.
>>
> 
> Since there have been no more clk-davinci patches for v4.19, I assume that
> it is OK to just let this go through the ARM tree via Sekhar?

Yes, that should be fine.

Thanks,
Sekhar