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... Tomi