From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758702Ab2C1U6e (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:58:34 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.9]:51910 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755259Ab2C1U6d (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:58:33 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 4/5] ARM: More device tree support updates Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:58:19 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.3.0-rc1; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Olof Johansson , arm@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1332918842-13521-1-git-send-email-olof@lixom.net> <1332918842-13521-5-git-send-email-olof@lixom.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201203282058.20226.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:YdMOposT/TkmHo8CLWUFFC9TBu/GJyYJgRIUC5uoKOc bMuoRL1NM4iiIySMxgIHhW1ziymT1LfoV5B0BGoxdXEDu37eWP eAIiPKVDHOu0XQBXUzClknMw+SkEzGVFSGRojg4CIUJBRzPEX3 3oO2tXmHiQCVG40vRAPpRpdx7rqkhtfP7MzpHeZLs2iS65ylTw jQWmofXGP37lE4V/OOp5I33KVcnmV4QWrLkVR0kShSbbMP2EZ7 Q3pZVMpVZ75tl8K+4si82gcr/0zJB0zObjtsEBfh9L47CduzmV fYfnWAVYDMzsq1Wtq0npRGDVrAyVi2rIQgg3/01/k+C2blNck1 cO5YbamFt5xSlva85BhE= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 28 March 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > > Merge conflicts and proposed solutions: > > > > arch/arm/mach-ux500/Kconfig: Two new config options. Keep both. > > Guys, I'm seeing merge problems that go way beyond this. > > Look at that MACH_U8500 config option. It got renamed to MACH_MOP500, > but it continues to live in the tree. > > This rename conflict happened earlier and I didn't notice (grep for > it: it's used by a staging driver), so it's already in my pushed out > tree. But it seems to be getting worse, and your proposed merge > solution doesn't cover it. Your solution looks good. I had the MACH_UX500_DT option above U5500 instead of below it in our for-next branch, but either way makes sense. > I'll try to fix things up, but you need to verify my merge. And you > guys should have noticed and noted it, rather than leave it to my > random bumbling about. Yes, noted for next time. We had a lot of merge conflicts because of being relatively late in the merge window (this one was purely self made though), and it's not always easy to decide which ones to eliminate in advance, leave in or describe the resolution we found. Since we usually see the same conflicts and resolve them in the for-next branch, I guess it's easy enough to just always provide the branch with the resolutions as a help for cases like this one. Arnd