From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753746Ab3H1NBo (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:01:44 -0400 Received: from mail-bk0-f47.google.com ([209.85.214.47]:50727 "EHLO mail-bk0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753662Ab3H1NBm (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:01:42 -0400 Message-ID: <521DF4B2.6070205@baylibre.com> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:01:38 +0200 From: Benoit Cousson Organization: BayLibre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Olof Johansson CC: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Kevin Hilman , Javier Martinez Canillas , Stephen Rothwell , Greg KH , Arnd Bergmann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Felipe Balbi , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the usb tree References: <20130827181353.319c150858829df1bb68d60b@canb.auug.org.au> <521C6961.9020103@linutronix.de> <521CA888.1080909@baylibre.com> <521CAF59.1090203@linutronix.de> <521CB046.9070408@baylibre.com> <878uznxjnl.fsf@linaro.org> <521CC4E3.8030204@linutronix.de> <20130827161203.GA22852@quad.lixom.net> In-Reply-To: <20130827161203.GA22852@quad.lixom.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Olof, On 27/08/2013 18:12, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 05:25:23PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >> On 08/27/2013 05:01 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >>>>> What do we do now? >>>> >>>> Cannot you just merge the stable arm-soc/dt branch into your branch >>>> before applying your patches? >>> >>> Unfortunately, the next/dt branch of arm-soc is not necessarily stable >>> so should *not* be merged. In fact none of the arm-soc branches should >>> be considered stable. >>> >>> As was already mentioned, this should be split up into driver changes >>> and DTS changes through arm-soc. They'll both merge for v3.12. >> >> But splitting will break the driver until .dts & code is in sync again. >> >>> BTW, how did this patch get merged without a signoff/ack from the OMAP >>> DT maintainer in the first place? Hmm, looks like Benoit was not copied >>> nor was linux-omap or linux-arm-kernel copied in the original mails. >> >> Hmm. I had Benoit's okay [0] to do the change "as long as Felipe is >> fine with it". I indeed forgot to Cc Benoit on the dts changes. >> For the phy-rename Felipe pinged you and we did the topic-branch, here >> I forgot. > > No. Read that email again. What Benoit said was that if Felipe was fine > with the change _HE_ would take it. Huge difference, and one that would have > avoided this situation. > > The only way to solve these things in the future is to make the driver handle > both the new and the old binding. Bindings are not supposed to change in > incompatible ways any more, unless for special circumstances and/or when the > old binding was completely broken. > > > The only way forward here, since Greg runs a stable tree that he doesn't > rebase, is for us to rebuild without the OMAP DT branch, and ask Benoit to take > out the conflicting changes. > > Benoit, I know this is none of your fault, but would you mind preparing a new > copy of the DT branch without the conflicting patches, and hold those to 3.13? > I haven't looked to see how many those were. OK, I'll do that ASAP and check how many should be removed to avoid a conflict with usb-next. Regards, Benoit