From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:12:28 +0200
Subject: [GIT PULL] GIC DT binding support
In-Reply-To: <4EA03160.1050304@gmail.com>
References: <4E97A601.1020005@gmail.com> <201110201507.38722.arnd@arndb.de>
	<4EA03160.1050304@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <201110201812.29202.arnd@arndb.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thursday 20 October 2011, Rob Herring wrote:
> Arnd,
> 
> On 10/20/2011 08:07 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday 14 October 2011, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> Please pull GIC device tree support. This is the first of 2 pull
> >> requests. You can ignore this one if there are no other dependencies on
> >> GIC DT support.
> >>
> >> This is based on rmk's for-next branch and v3.1-rc9. rc9 was needed for
> >> this dependency:
> > 
> > I don't see the for-next branch in the history. Do you mean it requires
> > the for-next branch as well in order to actually build?
> 
> Probably because it is buried by rc9 commits:
> 
> git log v3.1-rc9..gic-dt

Ah, I see them now. I should make sure I look more closely next time.
That definitely explains why I couldn't get this to merge into my
for-next branch cleanly.

> > Can you be more specific so I can watch for the dependencies to
> > get upstream first?
> > 
> 
> I believe it conflicts with this commit in rmk/for-next:
> 
> commit b166bc3be08b744d2f4b14921a1efee14906b383
> Author: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> Date:   Tue Aug 23 22:20:03 2011 +0100
> 
>     ARM: 7061/1: gic: convert logical CPU numbers into physical numbers
> 
> And this one in rmk/devel-stable:
> 
> commit 254056f3b12563c11e6dbcfad2fbfce20a4f3302
> Author: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>
> Date:   Thu Feb 10 12:54:10 2011 -0800
> 
>     ARM: gic: Use cpu pm notifiers to save gic state
> 

Ok. Conflicts are not the problem though, I can handle them and sfr can
handle them for linux-next, too. Real dependencies are the problem,
where you rely on a feature that is part of another tree.

> BTW, Russell's for-next branch has been rebased. The conflict with the
> 1st commit is trivial, so I could rebase to merge of rmk/devel-stable
> and v3.1-rc9.
> 
> I still need things from for-next for highbank. So perhaps I should send
> a pull request after Russell's tree goes in?

Yes and no. You simply cannot ask me to merge a branch that is based on
top of Russell's for-next branch, since that is getting rebased. It is
also bad if the stuff doesn't have any linux-next exposure, so we should
try to find another way out.

I've now rebased your tree on top of 3.1-rc9 plus the stable branches
from Russell's tree that I already have as dependencies in arm-soc/for-next
(devel-stable, smp, debug). This has caused no conflicts for me, but
that doesn't mean that it's correct. Please check that what I have
in arm-soc/dt/gic and arm-soc/highbank/soc actually works for you
and does not contain branches that you don't actually need.

	Arnd