From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755153Ab2CZIRE (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:17:04 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:11998 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754787Ab2CZIRB (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:17:01 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="123233446" Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:25:15 +0200 From: Samuel Ortiz To: Grant Likely Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Benoit Cousson , Felipe Balbi Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mfd tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20120326082515.GB20638@sortiz-mobl> References: <20120323143237.9b5917955cb42951f0368ec4@canb.auug.org.au> <20120323094139.GA7231@sortiz-mobl> <20120324173152.494DA3E0A26@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120324173152.494DA3E0A26@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 05:31:52PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:41:39 +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > > Hi Stephen, > > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 02:32:37PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi Samuel, > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the mfd tree got a conflict in > > > drivers/mfd/twl-core.c between commits 5769089ac725 ("mfd: twl-core.c: > > > Fix the number of interrupts managed by twl4030"), 75294957be1d > > > ("irq_domain: Remove 'new' irq_domain in favour of the ppc one") and > > > 964dba283439 ("devicetree: Add empty of_platform_populate() for ! > > > CONFIG_OF_ADDRESS (sparc)") from Linus' tree and commits 9e1786202704 > > > ("mfd: Make twl-core not depend on pdata->irq_base/end") and 78518ffa08fc > > > ("mfd: Move twl-core IRQ allocation into twl[4030|6030]-irq files") from > > > the mfd tree. > > > > > > I *think* that the right thing to do is to use the version from the mfd > > > tree ... > > That's correct. > > I have a for-next-merge branch where I usually have the merge conflicts with > > Linus tree fixed, in case you're interested. > > > > > > > I do wonder why I only got this now (in the merge window) ... > > I got a pull request from Benoit a couple days before the merge window opened. > > Then I realized part of the pull request contained a merge of one of Grant's > > branch. So I wanted to wait for Grant's code to get in before picking the mfd > > work on top of it. I didn't want to send a pull request to Linus with a merge > > point for something that would have been already merged. Maybe I was wrong, > > you tell me. > > It should have gone into linux-next before then. Waiting for my tree > to hit linus' tree defeats the purpose of linux-next. Now you're > branch hasn't had any testing and therefore is a risky merge. The branch has been tested by TI folks, on 3 different TI platforms. And the patches we're talking about are all TI's twl related ones. Cheers, Samuel. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/