From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754997AbbATTRm (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:17:42 -0500 Received: from smtp8.ore.mailhop.org ([54.148.153.48]:44016 "EHLO smtp8.ore.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752364AbbATTRk (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:17:40 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 2043 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:17:40 EST X-Mail-Handler: DuoCircle Outbound SMTP X-Originating-IP: 104.193.169.186 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@duocircle.com (see https://support.duocircle.com/support/solutions/articles/5000540958-duocircle-standard-smtp-abuse-information for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX18P9GmgEIPYCHFAxEdeIird Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:40:03 -0800 From: Tony Lindgren To: Olof Johansson Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Peter Robinson Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the omap tree with the arm-soc tree Message-ID: <20150120184002.GM7718@atomide.com> References: <20150120110947.1a92a416@canb.auug.org.au> <20150120171048.GF7718@atomide.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Olof Johansson [150120 10:27]: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Stephen Rothwell [150119 16:12]: > >> Hi Tony, > >> > >> Today's linux-next merge of the omap tree got a conflict in > >> arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile between commit cb612390e546 ("ARM: dts: Only > >> build dtb if associated Arch and/or SoC is enabled") from the arm-soc > >> tree and commit ac7452cee743 ("ARM: dts: Add minimal support for > >> dm8168-evm") from the omap tree. > >> > >> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action > >> is required). > > > > Uhh why is cb612390e546 doing formatting changes all over the place? > > That's a sure way to produce merge conflicts.. > > It's intentional but a but annoying, yes -- we're resolving them as we > merge in new DT contents so it won't be exposed outside of our tree > (and -next, unfortunately). OK. I don't have anything against cleaning up and sorting things to avoid merge conflicts naturally :) Maybe for other similar changes you can set up an immutable branch abainst v3.xx-rc1 with just the clean-up that people can use as a base without having to bring in all the other changes? Regards, Tony