From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753296AbdJLMC3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:02:29 -0400 Received: from mx08-00178001.pphosted.com ([91.207.212.93]:60881 "EHLO mx07-00178001.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751340AbdJLMC1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:02:27 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] Add support for USB OTG on STM32F7 To: Felipe Balbi , Amelie DELAUNAY , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Russell King , Maxime Coquelin , John Youn CC: "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Benjamin GAIGNARD References: <1503930018-536-1-git-send-email-amelie.delaunay@st.com> <878tgim24i.fsf@linux.intel.com> <04a49088-b615-d7b8-0387-e7bfa32ee19f@st.com> <87vajllx8t.fsf@linux.intel.com> <1c4180ef-2da6-b420-7c6e-41769608384a@st.com> <87sheplsrm.fsf@linux.intel.com> <3c36db6d-75fd-1be6-e946-b75a04e3760e@st.com> <21df4d0c-075c-0c5a-c39b-b1dd94fe819d@st.com> <87efq821tz.fsf@linux.intel.com> <878tgg1t5a.fsf@linux.intel.com> <8760bk1t1l.fsf@linux.intel.com> From: Alexandre Torgue Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 14:01:41 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8760bk1t1l.fsf@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.75.127.47] X-ClientProxiedBy: SFHDAG3NODE3.st.com (10.75.127.9) To SFHDAG3NODE2.st.com (10.75.127.8) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-10-12_05:,, signatures=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/12/2017 01:53 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi, > > Felipe Balbi writes: >>>>> I thought that patches 1 and 2, as they are "driver" patches, had to be >>>>> applied on USB tree (so Felipe's one), and the others (3 to 7) had to be >>>>> applied on STM32-DT tree (Alex's one). Did I miss something? >>>> >>>> patch 1 is documentation, right? Without the documentation patch, >>>> checkpatch will cringe :-) So either way works. >>>> >>>> If you insist, I can take 1-2 through my tree. No worries. >>> >>> I don't want to insist :) but for me it is better (and more safe) if you >>> take patch 1&2 in your tree, and will take others in mine. >> >> Okay, I'll apply 1&2 > > they are now in my testing/next and next branches. Thanks Felipe >