linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the omap

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201203091226.53749.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Fri, 9 Mar 2012 12:26:53 +0000
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Florian Tobias Schandinat <FlorianSchandinat@....de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the omap_dss2 tree

On Friday 09 March 2012, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>   On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 11:50 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday 09 March 2012, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 16:16 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 08 March 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap1/board-palmtt.c between commit ddba6c7f7ec6 ("OMAP1:
> > > > > pass LCD config with omapfb_set_lcd_config()") from the omap_dss2 tree
> > > > > and commit 2e3ee9f45b3c ("ARM: OMAP1: Move most of plat/io.h into local
> > > > > iomap.h") from the arm-soc tree.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Stephen,
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for fixing up all the conflicts between arm-soc and omap_dss2.
> > > > I think we should make sure they are resolved in one of the trees before
> > > > the merge window.
> > > 
> > > Do we need to? The conflicts seemed to be trivial ones, like arm-soc
> > > adds/removes something that just happens to be next to something else
> > > that I add/remove.
> > > 
> > > My understanding is that it's better to leave those conflicts than to do
> > > "trickery" to avoid them.
> > 
> > Each of the conflicts is simple enough, but I feel it's worth resolving
> > them in this case because there are a number of them. Looking at them
> > again now, it's probably ok either way -- resolving them now or letting
> > Linus take care of them.
> 
> Florian, do you have an opinion about this?
> 
> Merging omapdss tree through arm-soc would make sense for avoiding
> conflicts, because almost every merge window there are some conflicts as
> I often need to edit arch/arm files also. But I'm not sure if we have
> ever had a conflict in drivers/video.
> 
> But still, it's a video driver, and fbdev tree sounds more suited for a
> video driver.
> 
> So I don't know =). Basically it's ok for me either way also. But it
> would be nice to have a standard way of doing this, instead of, for
> example, merging omapdss sometimes through fbdev, sometimes through
> arm-soc, depending on the conflicts...

Actually, I did not suggest omapdss through arm-soc, the idea was that
that the same branch gets merged into both the fbdev and the arm-soc
trees and let the fbdev tree go to Linus first.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/