From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tomi.valkeinen@ti.com (Tomi Valkeinen) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 14:31:41 +0200 Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the omap_dss2 tree In-Reply-To: <201203091226.53749.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20120308170048.f1a992bca2ca2d93fa9747bf@canb.auug.org.au> <201203091150.11294.arnd@arndb.de> <1331295269.1927.54.camel@deskari> <201203091226.53749.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <1331296301.1927.64.camel@deskari> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 12:26 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 09 March 2012, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > 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. Ah, right, now I see. This sounds ok to me. I'll cc you when I send the pull request to Florian (presuming the arrangement is fine for him). Tomi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: