From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 20:54:50 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] Pull request for u-boot-arm -> u-boot? In-Reply-To: <20140505184034.GR22182@bill-the-cat> References: <5367C06C.3060307@wwwdotorg.org> <5367D556.2050408@wwwdotorg.org> <20140505184034.GR22182@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <201405052054.50260.marex@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Monday, May 05, 2014 at 08:40:34 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 12:15:50PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > > On 05/05/2014 11:59 AM, Fabio Estevam wrote: > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > > >> Albert, > > >> > > >> I was wondering when the next pull request for u-boot-arm/master -> > > >> u-boot/master was likely to be? > > >> > > >> I asked because some changes to the Tegra USB driver went through the > > >> u-boot-tegra/master and hence are now in u-boot-arm/master, but not in > > >> u-boot-usb/master. I have some more USB driver changes which rely on > > >> the earlier USB patches, and these should really go through > > >> u-boot-usb/master rather than the Tegra/ARM tree. For this to happen, > > >> u-boot-usb/master needs to contain the patches currently in > > >> u-boot-arm/master, and the best way for that to happen is for those > > >> patches to get into u-boot/master so that u-boot-usb/master can merge > > >> them. > > >> > > >> Or, should Marek just merge u-boot-arm/master into his tree directly? > > > > > > Or should we have a 'u-boot-next' tree using the same concept as the > > > kernel 'linux-next'? > > > > Having a u-boot-next won't solve this particular problem in any way. > > > > Having a u-boot-next allows any end-developer to develop on top of the > > combined code in all trees, thus detecting/avoiding any conflicts with > > them. > > > > However, my issue above is that a patch that's already applied in tree A > > needs to make its way into tree B, so that further patches can be > > *applied* in tree B. This is all about applying patches, not developing > > patches. The existence (or not) of a u-boot-next tree doesn't affect > > this issue at all. > > This is in fact a usual problem in Linux land where it seems like we > have much more stringent rules on how things can go in. So long as > people can collect the needed acks, I'm fine pulling things that touch a > few areas into master. The problem here is that I cannot apply the USB patches from Stephen until Albert gets his stuff into U-Boot/master, which I would then merge back into mine. Only then I can apply the USB patches. So we're waiting for Albert ... Best regards, Marek Vasut