From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bcousson@baylibre.com (Benoit Cousson) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:57:26 +0200 Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the usb tree In-Reply-To: <521CAF59.1090203@linutronix.de> References: <20130827181353.319c150858829df1bb68d60b@canb.auug.org.au> <521C6961.9020103@linutronix.de> <521CA888.1080909@baylibre.com> <521CAF59.1090203@linutronix.de> Message-ID: <521CB046.9070408@baylibre.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org + Kevin, On 27/08/2013 15:53, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 08/27/2013 03:24 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote: >> Hi Sebatian, > > Hi Benoit, > >> Yes. DT patches are an endless source of merge conflicts if they are >> merge throught different trees. > > Usually there are small conflicts because two people added / changed a > node nearby. This patch turned the .dts file almost upside down. Yes, that's true. >> What was discussed with Olof and Arnd during Connect is that we should >> avoid merging DT patches outside arm-soc tree to avoid that kind of >> situation. > > I am aware of this now. However these changes belonged together because > a) they belonged together and b) would break the driver until the .dts > changes and driver code is in-sync. > In future I am going to ask you for a topic branch so I can get my > changes in one piece without breaking stuff in the middle. > > What do we do now? Cannot you just merge the stable arm-soc/dt branch into your branch before applying your patches? Regards Benoit