From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Samsung EXYNOS pm domains for devel Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:34:29 +0000 Message-ID: <201202102334.29545.arnd@arndb.de> References: <010a01cce7e2$438f6d40$caae47c0$%kim@samsung.com> <201202102305.45710.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]:49479 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761116Ab2BJXeh (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:34:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: <201202102305.45710.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Kukjin Kim , 'Olof Johansson' , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org On Friday 10 February 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, February 10, 2012, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > Hi Arnd, Olof, > > > > Please pull samsung exynos pm domains. > > > > It has been merged into linux-pm tree by Rafael and I think it should be > > pulled into arm-soc. > > No, this doesn't work like this. A single patchset is not expected to be > present in two different trees at a time. We've been doing this for a number of other branches and I see nothing wrong with this approach as long as we can rely on both trees not to rebase the patches so the commit IDs remain stable. Rafael, do you want to keep the option of rebasing the patches that you got from Kukjin? If your workflow requires that, I can't take them, but if you can guarantee that the branch you have pulled them into is stable, I would prefer to pull it into a branch of arm-soc so that we can have other branches based on that where needed to avoid conflicts. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:34:29 +0000 Subject: [GIT PULL] Samsung EXYNOS pm domains for devel In-Reply-To: <201202102305.45710.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <010a01cce7e2$438f6d40$caae47c0$%kim@samsung.com> <201202102305.45710.rjw@sisk.pl> Message-ID: <201202102334.29545.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Friday 10 February 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, February 10, 2012, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > Hi Arnd, Olof, > > > > Please pull samsung exynos pm domains. > > > > It has been merged into linux-pm tree by Rafael and I think it should be > > pulled into arm-soc. > > No, this doesn't work like this. A single patchset is not expected to be > present in two different trees at a time. We've been doing this for a number of other branches and I see nothing wrong with this approach as long as we can rely on both trees not to rebase the patches so the commit IDs remain stable. Rafael, do you want to keep the option of rebasing the patches that you got from Kukjin? If your workflow requires that, I can't take them, but if you can guarantee that the branch you have pulled them into is stable, I would prefer to pull it into a branch of arm-soc so that we can have other branches based on that where needed to avoid conflicts. Arnd