From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>,
devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, srinivas.bakki@nxp.com,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, thierry.reding@avionic-design.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kevin.wells@nxp.com,
marek.vasut@gmail.com, arm@kernel.org,
linux-input@vger.kernel.org, axel.lin@gmail.com,
dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Second patchset for LPC32xx device tree conversion
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:06:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201204180806.16848.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120417205001.GH6498@mwanda>
On Tuesday 17 April 2012, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 07:08:19PM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
> > Applies to v3.4-rc3
> >
>
> This probably applies fine (the previous version did a couple days
> ago), but it's always best to submit patches against linux-next.
> The 3.4 kernel is in -rc already so this is 3.5 material.
I disagree. The patches won't get applied on -next, they get applied
on an -rc release, so they should be submitted against that version
as well. I agree that it makes sense to test patches against -next
when there is reason to believe there might be conflicts, but it's
not mandatory. When you know about conflicts against other patches
that are already in -next, I suggest listing them in the cover
letter (the patch 0/x) and suggest a resolution.
Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/8] Second patchset for LPC32xx device tree conversion
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:06:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201204180806.16848.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120417205001.GH6498@mwanda>
On Tuesday 17 April 2012, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 07:08:19PM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
> > Applies to v3.4-rc3
> >
>
> This probably applies fine (the previous version did a couple days
> ago), but it's always best to submit patches against linux-next.
> The 3.4 kernel is in -rc already so this is 3.5 material.
I disagree. The patches won't get applied on -next, they get applied
on an -rc release, so they should be submitted against that version
as well. I agree that it makes sense to test patches against -next
when there is reason to believe there might be conflicts, but it's
not mandatory. When you know about conflicts against other patches
that are already in -next, I suggest listing them in the cover
letter (the patch 0/x) and suggest a resolution.
Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>,
arm@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
thierry.reding@avionic-design.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-input@vger.kernel.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com,
axel.lin@gmail.com, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com,
marek.vasut@gmail.com, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
kevin.wells@nxp.com, srinivas.bakki@nxp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Second patchset for LPC32xx device tree conversion
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:06:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201204180806.16848.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120417205001.GH6498@mwanda>
On Tuesday 17 April 2012, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 07:08:19PM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
> > Applies to v3.4-rc3
> >
>
> This probably applies fine (the previous version did a couple days
> ago), but it's always best to submit patches against linux-next.
> The 3.4 kernel is in -rc already so this is 3.5 material.
I disagree. The patches won't get applied on -next, they get applied
on an -rc release, so they should be submitted against that version
as well. I agree that it makes sense to test patches against -next
when there is reason to believe there might be conflicts, but it's
not mandatory. When you know about conflicts against other patches
that are already in -next, I suggest listing them in the cover
letter (the patch 0/x) and suggest a resolution.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-18 8:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-17 17:08 [PATCH v2 0/8] Second patchset for LPC32xx device tree conversion Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] ohci-nxp: Driver cleanup Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 20:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-17 20:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-17 20:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-17 21:03 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 21:03 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 20:57 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-17 20:57 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-17 20:57 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-18 8:23 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-18 8:23 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-18 4:55 ` Thierry Reding
2012-04-18 4:55 ` Thierry Reding
2012-04-17 17:08 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] ohci-nxp: Device tree support Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] ARM: LPC32xx: clock.c update Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 21:09 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-17 21:09 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-17 21:09 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-18 8:33 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-18 8:33 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] ARM: LPC32xx: Remove obsolete platform Kconfig Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] input: Device tree support for LPC32xx touchscreen Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] iio: lpc32xx-adc: Remove driver conflict due to device tree Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` Roland Stigge
[not found] ` <1334682507-15055-1-git-send-email-stigge-uj/7R2tJ6VmzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
2012-04-17 17:08 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] ARM: LPC32xx: DTS files for device tree conversion Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` Roland Stigge
[not found] ` <1334682507-15055-8-git-send-email-stigge-uj/7R2tJ6VmzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
2012-04-18 5:46 ` Thierry Reding
2012-04-18 5:46 ` Thierry Reding
2012-04-18 5:46 ` Thierry Reding
[not found] ` <20120418054615.GB17506-RM9K5IK7kjIyiCvfTdI0JKcOhU4Rzj621B7CTYaBSLdn68oJJulU0Q@public.gmane.org>
2012-04-18 8:10 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-18 8:10 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-18 8:10 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-18 8:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-18 8:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-18 8:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-17 17:08 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] ARM: LPC32xx: Device tree support Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-18 6:02 ` Thierry Reding
2012-04-18 6:02 ` Thierry Reding
2012-04-18 8:15 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-18 8:15 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-18 8:15 ` Arnd Bergmann
[not found] ` <20120418060230.GC17506-RM9K5IK7kjIyiCvfTdI0JKcOhU4Rzj621B7CTYaBSLdn68oJJulU0Q@public.gmane.org>
2012-04-18 12:30 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-18 12:30 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-18 12:30 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-18 14:01 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-18 14:01 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-17 20:50 ` [PATCH v2 0/8] Second patchset for LPC32xx device tree conversion Dan Carpenter
2012-04-17 20:50 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-17 20:50 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-18 8:00 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-18 8:00 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-18 8:06 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2012-04-18 8:06 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-18 8:06 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-18 9:36 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-18 9:36 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-18 9:36 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-18 11:00 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-18 11:00 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-18 12:14 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-18 12:14 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-18 16:56 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-18 16:56 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-19 14:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-19 14:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-18 10:45 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-18 10:45 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201204180806.16848.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=arm@kernel.org \
--cc=axel.lin@gmail.com \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kevin.wells@nxp.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marek.vasut@gmail.com \
--cc=srinivas.bakki@nxp.com \
--cc=stigge@antcom.de \
--cc=thierry.reding@avionic-design.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.