From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751479AbcFVIXp (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2016 04:23:45 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f171.google.com ([209.85.217.171]:35100 "EHLO mail-lb0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751302AbcFVIXl (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2016 04:23:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:23:36 +0200 From: Daniel Vetter To: Russell King Cc: Daniel Vetter , Stephen Rothwell , intel-gfx , dri-devel , linux-next , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Benjamin Gaignard Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-misc tree with the arm tree Message-ID: <20160622082336.GN23520@phenom.ffwll.local> Mail-Followup-To: Russell King , Stephen Rothwell , intel-gfx , dri-devel , linux-next , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Benjamin Gaignard References: <20160622114704.5b0c97eb@canb.auug.org.au> <20160622082110.GM22276@flint.armlinux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160622082110.GM22276@flint.armlinux.org.uk> X-Operating-System: Linux phenom 4.6.0-rc5+ User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:21:11AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:31:18AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the drm-misc tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/sti/sti_drv.c > > > > > > between commit: > > > > > > 062993b15e8e ("drm: convert DT component matching to component_match_add_release()") > > > > Why did that one end up in the arm tree? Should it go in through > > drm-misc instead? > > Mine is part of a three part patch series which is part of the component > helper updates (which I'm the author and maintainer of). > > Then someone came up with an alternative way of some of part of it. > > You can't merge the above DRM part, because that means you also need to > merge patch 1, which is core component stuff. Makes sense, but generally in that case I ask Dave for an explicit ack for merging through another tree to avoid confusion. Lack of that is why I asked. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch