From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Benoit Cousson <bcousson@baylibre.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the usb tree
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:57:26 +0200
Message-ID: <521CB046.9070408@baylibre.com>
References: <20130827181353.319c150858829df1bb68d60b@canb.auug.org.au> <521C6961.9020103@linutronix.de> <CABxcv=mg6t5wPqpF3j5sr_76qfZ7N7KgpWhcKSGoPTOcaR=V6A@mail.gmail.com> <521CA888.1080909@baylibre.com> <521CAF59.1090203@linutronix.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-bk0-f48.google.com ([209.85.214.48]:42861 "EHLO
	mail-bk0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751857Ab3H0N5a (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-next@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:57:30 -0400
Received: by mail-bk0-f48.google.com with SMTP id my13so1632950bkb.7
        for <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 06:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <521CAF59.1090203@linutronix.de>
Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-next.vger.kernel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@dowhile0.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "khilman@linaro.org" <khilman@linaro.org>

+ 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