From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:15:22 +0000 Subject: [GIT PULL] ux500 removal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201301302315.22357.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wednesday 30 January 2013, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: > > [Me] > >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-stericsson.git > >> tags/ux500-no-idh > > > > Pulled in. > > > > This has a somewhat annoying (but trivial) conflict against your own > > code (the cpufreq driver changes). > > Arnd always told me to split stuff cleanly on branches, which of course > leads to conflicts like that, but I thought he wanted them, rather than > huge accumulated patch sets built on to of each othere ... a bit hard to > do the right thing here, what would have been the right way? > > Does it help if I base stuff off ARM SoC tree branches, and which > ones can be relied upon in that case? Not sure if it applies here, but in a lot of cases, one can extract the parts that do conflict and put those patches first in the series, and merge them together before the pull request. The classic example of this is two independent features A and B that both contain some cleanup. By moving the cleanup first, you can merge the cleanup-A patches with the cleanup-B patches and submit them as one branch, and then have feature A on top of cleanup-A merge cleanly with both feature-B (because there are no conflicts) and with cleanup-A-B (because cleanup-A-B has already resolved the conflict). Unrelated to this: The mach/id.h removal seems to have caused a few build errors in the for-next tree with u8500_defconfig. Can you have a look at what went wrong there? Arnd