From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Javier Martinez Canillas Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the usb tree Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:44:07 +0200 Message-ID: References: <521CA888.1080909@baylibre.com> <521CAF59.1090203@linutronix.de> <521CB046.9070408@baylibre.com> <521CB18B.4080000@linutronix.de> <521CB239.6050409@baylibre.com> <521CB403.8010307@linutronix.de> <20130827173732.GC21564@kroah.com> <20130827183732.GP3005@radagast> <20130827193021.GA30113@kroah.com> <20130827195652.GE3005@radagast> <521F1D28.7070003@baylibre.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-we0-f180.google.com ([74.125.82.180]:44379 "EHLO mail-we0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753209Ab3H2NoJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:44:09 -0400 Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q58so445866wes.11 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:44:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <521F1D28.7070003@baylibre.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Benoit Cousson Cc: Felipe Balbi , Greg KH , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Stephen Rothwell , Arnd Bergmann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Olof Johansson , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "khilman@linaro.org" On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote: > Hi Felipe > > > On 27/08/2013 21:56, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:30:21PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:37:32PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:37:32AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 04:13:23PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 08/27/2013 04:05 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 27/08/2013 16:02, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 08/27/2013 03:57 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + Kevin, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 27/08/2013 15:53, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What do we do now? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cannot you just merge the stable arm-soc/dt branch into your branch >>>>>>>>> before applying your patches? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is up to Greg. This changes sat in his usb-next tree for a >>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>> now. And before they hit Greg they were in Felipe's tree for a >>>>>>>> while. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To be exact, last .dts change via USB was: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Author: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior >>>>>>>> AuthorDate: Thu Jun 20 12:13:04 2013 +0200 >>>>>>>> Commit: Felipe Balbi >>>>>>>> CommitDate: Fri Aug 9 17:40:16 2013 +0300 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> usb: musb dma: add cppi41 dma driver >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mmm, if that branch is supposed to be stable, I'm not sure it will be >>>>>>> doable... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe we should do the other way around? And merge usb-next into >>>>>>> arm-soc/dt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kevin, Olof? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please be aware that I have no response so far regarding [0] from >>>>>> Greg. >>>>>> >>>>>> [0] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg92595.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nor will you, given that I am not the one to take these patches, Felipe >>>>> is. I noticed now that you said "please route around Felipe", but >>>>> sorry, no, I'm not going to do that unless there's a really good >>>>> reason. >>>>> Felipe seems to be around at the moment, please work with him on this. >>>> >>>> >>>> If you will still take a 'part2' pull request from me, I can send you >>>> urgent bugfixes by friday. If I have some time left, I can even try to >>>> get that sorted out by tomorrow. >>> >>> >>> For 3.12 stuff, like "fixes", sure, I can take them this week, that >>> should give us a week or so for linux-next testing, right? >> >> >> that's correct. I have most of them already queued up, let me just go >> over my linux-usb maildir again and make sure I got all the important >> stuff in. >> >> cheers, thanks for opening this 'window'. > > > There are two patches in my DTS tree that conflict with the usb-next. > > I will remove that one (ARM: dts: AM33XX: don't redefine OCP bus and device > nodes) , as suggested by Olof, since it is the biggest source of conflict > from my tree. > Hi Benoit, Should I re-post this patch for 3.13 or do you think that the clean-up is not worth it due the high probability to lead to a merge conflict? I know is an intrusive change but a needed cleanup IMHO. People keep doing copy & paste with current am33xx DT and keep duplicating device nodes already existing in the included .dtsi file. I reviewed at least 2 new DTS that had the same issue. Also, this shouldn't had happened if all the OMAP DT patches went through your tree... > The second one is easily fixable, and Stephen already did it, but it will be > even better it you could take it in your tree. > This is the patch you did that I just slightly renamed (ARM: OMAP5: dts: fix > reg property size). > > Regards, > Benoit > Best regards, Javier