From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Mundt Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 03:32:20 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] sh and mach-shmobile struct sh_clk_ops rename Message-Id: <20120306033219.GA1828@linux-sh.org> List-Id: References: <20120229131605.29154.8330.sendpatchset@w520> In-Reply-To: <20120229131605.29154.8330.sendpatchset@w520> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:56:34PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, February 29, 2012, Magnus Damm wrote: > > sh and mach-shmobile struct sh_clk_ops rename > > Well, this is a hard one, because it has a potential to create many > dependencies and I think some other patchsets already posted depend on it > right? > > I'd handle that by creating a separate branch, based on the Linus' current, > that will contain all of the patches in the $subject series and may be > merged into other branches by me or Paul as needed. > > What do you think? > There are a few ways to do this I suppose. A common topic branch that we can pull in to either the SH or ARM side makes sense. We can do the entire series in one topic branch that gets merged twice and we just make sure that no rebasing takes place, or we can do patches 1-2 on a common branch, then 3-8 on an rmobile branch based on the common on, 9-16 on an sh one, and then leave 17 for the end of the merge window. Ultimately it depends on how much more work there is going to be done built on top of this. The sh changes are minimal, so I'm not too worried about merge conflicts even if we just keep all of these batched together.