From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the tree Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:09:33 -0300 Message-ID: <20140320140933.4218df22@samsung.com> References: <20140313005026.95bb2222270ded24b0a5deff@kernel.org> <3306881.foYD0IDJn0@avalon> <20140320154402.063BDC40A0B@trevor.secretlab.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: <20140320154402.063BDC40A0B@trevor.secretlab.ca> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Grant Likely Cc: Laurent Pinchart , Mark Brown , Greg KH , Philipp Zabel , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Em Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:44:01 +0000 Grant Likely escreveu: > On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:17:56 +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > > > On Thursday 13 March 2014 00:50:26 Mark Brown wrote: > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in > > > drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-of.c between commit b9db140c1e4644d > > > ("[media] v4l: of: Support empty port nodes") from the v4l tree and > > > commit fd9fdb78a9bf ("[media] of: move graph helpers from > > > drivers/media/v4l2-core to drivers/of") from the staging tree. > > > > > > I fixed it up by essentially dropping the support for empty port nodes > > > since there were more context differences than I was comfortable with > > > in the changes in the new code. > > > > If I'm not mistaken the move of drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-of.c to > > drivers/of/of-graph.c has been canceled for v3.15 and related patches should > > be dropped from the for-next branches in the very near future (the v4l tree > > has already been rebased). > > I had not actually asked Mauro to revert, See: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/10/283 There, you literally answered me that: "All trees containing the branch would need to be reverted." and: "It means any tree containing that branch *must* be rewound." That's what I (unhappily) did. I won't reapply this series, but, instead, I'll simply wait for the staging tree to be merged before sending those patches upstream, before sending the topic branch with exynos 5 patches that depend on it. This way, I can add Stephen patch on such topic branch, to avoid compilation breakages after merged. > but the branch is still in rmk's > tree and linux-next. I do not think it needs to be cancelled. > I do still have issues about it as a generic pattern, but I'm happy with > the discussion so far and the documentation will be sorted before the > next kernel is released. > > g. Regards, Mauro