Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mfd tree with Linus' tree

From: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@ti.com>, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mfd tree with Linus' tree
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:25:15 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120326082515.GB20638@sortiz-mobl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120324173152.494DA3E0A26@localhost>

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 05:31:52PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:41:39 +0100, Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com> 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/