From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Second patchset for LPC32xx device tree conversion Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:36:04 +0300 Message-ID: <20120418093604.GL6498@mwanda> References: <1334682507-15055-1-git-send-email-stigge@antcom.de> <20120417205001.GH6498@mwanda> <201204180806.16848.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201204180806.16848.arnd@arndb.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org Sender: devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Roland Stigge , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, srinivas.bakki@nxp.com, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, 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, thierry.reding@avionic-design.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 08:06:16AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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. > I'm not sure I understand. I thought everyone used the develop against linux-next and backport the fixes model. Are we going to try merge these in 3.4? It will still spend some time in linux-next before we submit it, right? To be honest, I mostly am familiar with staging/ where driver wide white space cleanups are the norm. Working against linux-next is the only option for us or otherwise the conflicts would be too much. regards, dan carpenter