From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benoit Cousson Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the usb tree Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:47:35 +0200 Message-ID: <521F5F07.4090609@baylibre.com> References: <521CAF59.1090203@linutronix.de> <521CB046.9070408@baylibre.com> <521CB18B.4080000@linutronix.de> <521CB239.6050409@baylibre.com> <521CB403.8010307@linutronix.de> <20130827173732.GC21564@kroah.com> <20130827183732.GP3005@radagast> <20130827193021.GA30113@kroah.com> <20130827195652.GE3005@radagast> <521F1D28.7070003@baylibre.com> <20130829142302.GJ9325@radagast> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130829142302.GJ9325@radagast> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: balbi@ti.com Cc: Greg KH , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Javier Martinez Canillas , Stephen Rothwell , Arnd Bergmann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Olof Johansson , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "khilman@linaro.org" List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On 29/08/2013 16:23, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:06:32PM +0200, Benoit Cousson wrote: >> Hi Felipe >> >> On 27/08/2013 21:56, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:30:21PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: >>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:37:32PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:37:32AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 04:13:23PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >>>>>>> On 08/27/2013 04:05 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 27/08/2013 16:02, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 08/27/2013 03:57 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> + Kevin, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 27/08/2013 15:53, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> What do we do now? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cannot you just merge the stable arm-soc/dt branch into your branch >>>>>>>>>> before applying your patches? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is up to Greg. This changes sat in his usb-next tree for a while >>>>>>>>> now. And before they hit Greg they were in Felipe's tree for a while. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To be exact, last .dts change via USB was: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Author: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior >>>>>>>>> AuthorDate: Thu Jun 20 12:13:04 2013 +0200 >>>>>>>>> Commit: Felipe Balbi >>>>>>>>> CommitDate: Fri Aug 9 17:40:16 2013 +0300 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> usb: musb dma: add cppi41 dma driver >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mmm, if that branch is supposed to be stable, I'm not sure it will be >>>>>>>> doable... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe we should do the other way around? And merge usb-next into >>>>>>>> arm-soc/dt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kevin, Olof? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please be aware that I have no response so far regarding [0] from Greg. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [0] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg92595.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Nor will you, given that I am not the one to take these patches, Felipe >>>>>> is. I noticed now that you said "please route around Felipe", but >>>>>> sorry, no, I'm not going to do that unless there's a really good reason. >>>>>> Felipe seems to be around at the moment, please work with him on this. >>>>> >>>>> If you will still take a 'part2' pull request from me, I can send you >>>>> urgent bugfixes by friday. If I have some time left, I can even try to >>>>> get that sorted out by tomorrow. >>>> >>>> For 3.12 stuff, like "fixes", sure, I can take them this week, that >>>> should give us a week or so for linux-next testing, right? >>> >>> that's correct. I have most of them already queued up, let me just go >>> over my linux-usb maildir again and make sure I got all the important >>> stuff in. >>> >>> cheers, thanks for opening this 'window'. >> >> There are two patches in my DTS tree that conflict with the usb-next. >> >> I will remove that one (ARM: dts: AM33XX: don't redefine OCP bus and >> device nodes) , as suggested by Olof, since it is the biggest source >> of conflict from my tree. >> >> The second one is easily fixable, and Stephen already did it, but it >> will be even better it you could take it in your tree. >> This is the patch you did that I just slightly renamed (ARM: OMAP5: >> dts: fix reg property size). > > I'm done with Pull requests for Greg. If the conflict is easy to solve, > what's the problem in having the conflict to start with ? Well, it is mainly the other one that is a pain to fix. Since I was about to send another pull-request, I was wondering if you'll be OK to take it. Regards, Benoit