From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the omap_dss2 tree Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 12:26:53 +0000 Message-ID: <201203091226.53749.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20120308170048.f1a992bca2ca2d93fa9747bf@canb.auug.org.au> <201203091150.11294.arnd@arndb.de> <1331295269.1927.54.camel@deskari> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:62575 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755042Ab2CIM1I (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2012 07:27:08 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1331295269.1927.54.camel@deskari> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Tomi Valkeinen Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Olof Johansson , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tony Lindgren , Florian Tobias Schandinat On Friday 09 March 2012, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 11:50 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Friday 09 March 2012, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 16:16 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > On Thursday 08 March 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in > > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap1/board-palmtt.c between commit ddba6c7f7ec6 ("OMAP1: > > > > > pass LCD config with omapfb_set_lcd_config()") from the omap_dss2 tree > > > > > and commit 2e3ee9f45b3c ("ARM: OMAP1: Move most of plat/io.h into local > > > > > iomap.h") from the arm-soc tree. > > > > > > > > > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. > > > > > > > > Hi Stephen, > > > > > > > > Thanks for fixing up all the conflicts between arm-soc and omap_dss2. > > > > I think we should make sure they are resolved in one of the trees before > > > > the merge window. > > > > > > Do we need to? The conflicts seemed to be trivial ones, like arm-soc > > > adds/removes something that just happens to be next to something else > > > that I add/remove. > > > > > > My understanding is that it's better to leave those conflicts than to do > > > "trickery" to avoid them. > > > > Each of the conflicts is simple enough, but I feel it's worth resolving > > them in this case because there are a number of them. Looking at them > > again now, it's probably ok either way -- resolving them now or letting > > Linus take care of them. > > Florian, do you have an opinion about this? > > Merging omapdss tree through arm-soc would make sense for avoiding > conflicts, because almost every merge window there are some conflicts as > I often need to edit arch/arm files also. But I'm not sure if we have > ever had a conflict in drivers/video. > > But still, it's a video driver, and fbdev tree sounds more suited for a > video driver. > > So I don't know =). Basically it's ok for me either way also. But it > would be nice to have a standard way of doing this, instead of, for > example, merging omapdss sometimes through fbdev, sometimes through > arm-soc, depending on the conflicts... Actually, I did not suggest omapdss through arm-soc, the idea was that that the same branch gets merged into both the fbdev and the arm-soc trees and let the fbdev tree go to Linus first. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 12:26:53 +0000 Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the omap_dss2 tree In-Reply-To: <1331295269.1927.54.camel@deskari> References: <20120308170048.f1a992bca2ca2d93fa9747bf@canb.auug.org.au> <201203091150.11294.arnd@arndb.de> <1331295269.1927.54.camel@deskari> Message-ID: <201203091226.53749.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Friday 09 March 2012, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 11:50 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Friday 09 March 2012, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 16:16 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > On Thursday 08 March 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in > > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap1/board-palmtt.c between commit ddba6c7f7ec6 ("OMAP1: > > > > > pass LCD config with omapfb_set_lcd_config()") from the omap_dss2 tree > > > > > and commit 2e3ee9f45b3c ("ARM: OMAP1: Move most of plat/io.h into local > > > > > iomap.h") from the arm-soc tree. > > > > > > > > > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. > > > > > > > > Hi Stephen, > > > > > > > > Thanks for fixing up all the conflicts between arm-soc and omap_dss2. > > > > I think we should make sure they are resolved in one of the trees before > > > > the merge window. > > > > > > Do we need to? The conflicts seemed to be trivial ones, like arm-soc > > > adds/removes something that just happens to be next to something else > > > that I add/remove. > > > > > > My understanding is that it's better to leave those conflicts than to do > > > "trickery" to avoid them. > > > > Each of the conflicts is simple enough, but I feel it's worth resolving > > them in this case because there are a number of them. Looking at them > > again now, it's probably ok either way -- resolving them now or letting > > Linus take care of them. > > Florian, do you have an opinion about this? > > Merging omapdss tree through arm-soc would make sense for avoiding > conflicts, because almost every merge window there are some conflicts as > I often need to edit arch/arm files also. But I'm not sure if we have > ever had a conflict in drivers/video. > > But still, it's a video driver, and fbdev tree sounds more suited for a > video driver. > > So I don't know =). Basically it's ok for me either way also. But it > would be nice to have a standard way of doing this, instead of, for > example, merging omapdss sometimes through fbdev, sometimes through > arm-soc, depending on the conflicts... Actually, I did not suggest omapdss through arm-soc, the idea was that that the same branch gets merged into both the fbdev and the arm-soc trees and let the fbdev tree go to Linus first. Arnd