On 13/08/2015 at 12:09:38 +0200, Olof Johansson wrote : > On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 06:27:54PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > Arnd, Olof, Kevin, > > > > A little defconfig update. That will probably be all for this cycle. > > > > Thanks, bye, > > > > > > The following changes since commit eff7f41572a645bf14a96a6f844be4f1c88cd9dd: > > > > ARM: at91: at91_dt_defconfig: enable ISI and ov2640 support (2015-07-30 > > 14:17:31 +0200) > > > > are available in the git repository at: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/abelloni/linux.git > > tags/at91-ab-defconfig2 > > > > for you to fetch changes up to ea7bf603fd494391acc1f42acbfc34260b965c44: > > > > ARM: at91/defconfig: at91_dt: remove ARM_AT91_ETHER (2015-08-07 12:07:50 > > +0200) > > Nicolas had sent me one patch which you've also included here but it's not in > the pull request ("enable ISI and ov2640 support"). That caused a conflict > here, so to avoid having the patch in the tree twice I instead also directly > applied your patches from this branch instead of merging. > > Sorry about that, it started due to Nicolas sending the discrete patch to us. > So it seems like we'll apply at91 defconfig updates directly this release, in > case there are any more. No big deal I hope. :) >
That's not a big deal and there will most probably be all for that cycle anyway. However, I'm wondering how I should have done. From the PR, if you get eff7f41572a645bf14a96a6f844be4f1c88cd9dd..tags/at91-ab-defconfig2, it correctly excludes "enable ISI and ov2640 support" so I was thinking it was fine. Be cause the first patch was taken as a patch, should I have prepared a branch without it? -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/