On Thu, 12 May 2016, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Thu, 12 May, at 10:22:07AM, Shannon Zhao wrote: > > > > As said above, I will rebase this patch on top of the EFI next branch. > > OK thanks. > > Note that it is not possible to escape merge conflicts, since there > are changes in the xen tip tree that are not in the EFI next branch > and vice versa. > > For example these commits from xen/linux-next look relevant, > > 8e147fcc3ffa ("FDT: Add a helper to get the subnode by given name") > 37060935dc04 ("ARM64: XEN: Add a function to initialize Xen specific UEFI runtime services") > acb2c923a860 ("XEN: EFI: Move x86 specific codes to architecture directory") > 055be2d42408 ("ARM: Xen: Document UEFI support on Xen ARM virtual platforms") > 3915fea959b6 ("ARM: XEN: Move xen_early_init() before efi_init()") >From a diffstat perspective, the changes introduced by these commits affect drivers/of/fdt.c, arch/arm/xen, arch/x86/xen, drivers/xen and little else. I don't think they should cause merge troubles. > Linus, Stefano, tip-folks: I'm soliciting opinions on the correct way > to handle this inter-tree dependency where we've got changes to EFI > code in two separate trees and Shannon wants to write patches on top > of both. > > I'm guessing the best solution is to merge xen/linux-next and efi/next > into a topic branch either in the EFI tree or Xen tree, but I want to > be cautious of the branch history that will create. I am OK with that. You and I will have to be careful with the pull requests. > (In hindsight all of these change should have probably gone via the > EFI tree.) That is still possible if deemed best. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html