[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <521CB046.9070408@baylibre.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:57:26 +0200
From: Benoit Cousson <bcousson@...libre.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
CC: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
"khilman@...aro.org" <khilman@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the usb tree
+ Kevin,
On 27/08/2013 15:53, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 08/27/2013 03:24 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
>> Hi Sebatian,
>
> Hi Benoit,
>
>> Yes. DT patches are an endless source of merge conflicts if they are
>> merge throught different trees.
>
> Usually there are small conflicts because two people added / changed a
> node nearby. This patch turned the .dts file almost upside down.
Yes, that's true.
>> What was discussed with Olof and Arnd during Connect is that we should
>> avoid merging DT patches outside arm-soc tree to avoid that kind of
>> situation.
>
> I am aware of this now. However these changes belonged together because
> a) they belonged together and b) would break the driver until the .dts
> changes and driver code is in-sync.
> In future I am going to ask you for a topic branch so I can get my
> changes in one piece without breaking stuff in the middle.
>
> What do we do now?
Cannot you just merge the stable arm-soc/dt branch into your branch
before applying your patches?
Regards
Benoit
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists