From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the arm tree Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:08:27 +0000 Message-ID: <201111251708.27486.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20111124115239.ff33728e7e9a99426528c214@canb.auug.org.au> <201111241554.09598.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.9]:64855 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751076Ab1KYRIk (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Nov 2011 12:08:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Shawn Guo , Magnus Damm Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , Paul Mundt On Thursday 24 November 2011, Shawn Guo wrote: > On 24 November 2011 23:54, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thursday 24 November 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> Hi Arnd, > >> > >> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in > >> arch/arm/tools/mach-types between commit bb9b25f923fc ("ARM: Update > >> mach-types") from the arm tree and commit 9b7c547f7747 ("ARM: Update > >> mach-types to fix mxs build breakage") from the arm-soc tree. > >> > >> The arm tree version is a superset of the arm-soc version, so I used that. > > > > Thanks for catching this! > > > > Shawn, please make sure that any updates to mach-types go only through > > Russell's tree. Unfortunately I did not realize that this was out of > > scope when I merged it, otherwise I would have complained yesterday. > > > Sorry if I have misunderstood Russell's comment below. > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/139196/focus=140505 > > But I thought he would not send patch on mach-types for -rc series. > That's why I came up with this patch and sent it to you. After all, > we do not want to see mxs build breakage in a release. What Russell said was that he would not send a full update of the mach-types file during -rc, because that would remove lots of (broken) entries and consequently cause build regressions. He did already send a patch 628e1110 "ARM: Add a few machine types to mach-types" with a manual update, and normally I'd say your patch should go the same way. We also still need to sort out the underlying problem that Russell mentioned in the thread, which is that he doesn't want to add any entries that are not used, while I don't want to add any code that doesn't build (which a machine definition doesn't without the mach-types entry). The best solution I can think of is if I ask people to manually add a line for their machines when a new one gets added (this should be getting rarer in the future) and I check that the line is identical to the one that we get after Russell does the next update. The main disadvantage with this approach is that it generates a lot of trivial merge conflicts that the database was originally meant to avoid. I also noticed that there is a second missing entry for a board that Paul Mundt added recently: $ git grep ^MACHINE_START arch/arm/ | cut -f 2 -d \( | cut -f 1 -d, | \ while read i ; do \ if ! git grep -qw "$i" arch/arm/tools/mach-types ; then echo $i ; fi ;\ done M28EVK KOTA2 The patch that Magnus did for the KOTA2 mach-types entry is currently in the same state, waiting for an Ack from Russell. Arnd