Re: davinci vs. v4l2: lots of conflicts in merge for linux-next

[Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>]

"Karicheri, Muralidharan" <m-karicheri2@ti.com> writes:

> Kevin,
>
> Ok, I see you have merged vpif capture architecture part to master branch
> of davinci. 
>
> So what you are suggesting is to remove all vpif/vpfe patches from
> arch/arm/davinci of v4l linux-next tree (So I guess this is what
> Mauro should do on linux-next). So architecture part of all future
> video patches are to be re-created and re-submitted based on
> davinci-next and will be merged only to davinci tree and Mauro will
> merge the v4l part.

Yes.

Also note the two patches below that I dropped in davinci-next.  These
should be re-added as well.

Kevin

> Kevin & Mauro,
>
> So only concern I have is that these patches may not compile (either architecture part or v4l part) until the counter part becomes available on the tree. Is this fine? 
>
> Murali Karicheri
> Software Design Engineer
> Texas Instruments Inc.
> Germantown, MD 20874
> new phone: 301-407-9583
> Old Phone : 301-515-3736 (will be deprecated)
> email: m-karicheri2@ti.com
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Kevin Hilman [mailto:khilman@deeprootsystems.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:00 AM
>>To: Karicheri, Muralidharan; Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>>Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org; Hans Verkuil; DaVinci
>>Subject: davinci vs. v4l2: lots of conflicts in merge for linux-next
>>
>>OK, this has gotten a bit out of control, to the point where I cannot
>>solve this myself.  This is partially due to me being on the road and
>>not keeping a close enough eye on the various video patches.
>>
>>I've pushed a new 'davinci-next' branch to davinci git[1] which is
>>what I would like to make available for linux-next.  This includes all
>>the patches from davinci git master which touch
>>arch/arm/mach-davinci/*.
>>
>>I then went to do a test a merge of the master branch of Mauro's
>>linux-next tree, and there are lots of conflicts.  Some are trivial to
>>resolve (the various I2C_BOARD_INFO() conflicts) but others are more
>>difficult, and someone more familar with the video drivers should sort
>>them out.
>>
>>The two patches from davinci master that seem to be causing all the
>>problems are:
>>
>>  ARM: DaVinci: DM646x Video: Platform and board specific setup
>>  davinci: video: restructuring to support vpif capture driver
>>
>>These cause the conflicts with the v4l2 next tree.  So, in
>>davinci-next I've dropped these two patches.
>>
>>I think the way to fix this is for someone to take all the board
>>changes from the v4l2 tree and rebase them on top of my davinci-next,
>>dropping them from v4l2 next. I'll then merge them into davinci-next,
>>and this should make the two trees merge properly in linux-next.
>>
>>We need to get this sorted out soon so that they can be merged for the
>>next merge window.
>>
>>Going forward, I would prefer that all changes to arch/arm/* stuff go
>>through davinci git and all drivers/* stuff goes through V4L2.  This
>>will avoid this kind of overlap/conflict in the future since DaVinci
>>core code is going through lots of changes.
>>
>>Kevin
>>
>>[1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/khilman/linux-davinci.git