From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the usb tree Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:53:29 +0200 Message-ID: <521CAF59.1090203@linutronix.de> References: <20130827181353.319c150858829df1bb68d60b@canb.auug.org.au> <521C6961.9020103@linutronix.de> <521CA888.1080909@baylibre.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:37177 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753062Ab3H0Nxh (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:53:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <521CA888.1080909@baylibre.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Benoit Cousson Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas , Stephen Rothwell , Greg KH , Arnd Bergmann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Felipe Balbi , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Olof Johansson , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org 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. > 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? > Regards, > Benoit Sebastian