From: kgene.kim@samsung.com (Kukjin Kim) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 07:35:51 +0900 Subject: [PATCH v5 0/6] spi: s3c64xx: add support for device tree In-Reply-To: <20120712161657.GC7256@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1342021265-11212-1-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <20120711174908.GP3938@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <0fae01cd600e$442ed160$cc8c7420$%kim@samsung.com> <20120712130234.GE3957@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20120712161657.GC7256@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Message-ID: <4FFF5147.3070707@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 07/13/12 01:16, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 07:13:37PM +0530, Thomas Abraham wrote: >> On 12 July 2012 18:32, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> Well, simple conflicts aren't that big a deal... However, Thomas >>> mentioned that in order to test this he merged the SPI tree into your >>> tree so perhaps there is also a dependency on the SPI tree? If that was >>> just for good practice testing then I agree that the best thing is to >>> merge via your tree, otherwise we might need to think harder. > >> There were no dependency on Grant's spi/next branch. It was merged >> just to ensure that nothing is broken. > > OK, great - then the Samsung tree it is. Thanks, will apply. Mark, if you want to add your ack or review on them, let me know. Thanks. Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim , Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.