"Karicheri, Muralidharan" <m-karicheri2@xxxxxx> writes: > Kevin, > > Ok, I see you have merged vpif capture architecture part to master branch > of davinci. > > So what you are suggesting is to remove all vpif/vpfe patches from > arch/arm/davinci of v4l linux-next tree (So I guess this is what > Mauro should do on linux-next). So architecture part of all future > video patches are to be re-created and re-submitted based on > davinci-next and will be merged only to davinci tree and Mauro will > merge the v4l part. Yes. Also note the two patches below that I dropped in davinci-next. These should be re-added as well. Kevin > Kevin & Mauro, > > So only concern I have is that these patches may not compile (either architecture part or v4l part) until the counter part becomes available on the tree. Is this fine? > > Murali Karicheri > Software Design Engineer > Texas Instruments Inc. > Germantown, MD 20874 > new phone: 301-407-9583 > Old Phone : 301-515-3736 (will be deprecated) > email: m-karicheri2@xxxxxx > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Kevin Hilman [mailto:khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >>Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:00 AM >>To: Karicheri, Muralidharan; Mauro Carvalho Chehab >>Cc: linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Hans Verkuil; DaVinci >>Subject: davinci vs. v4l2: lots of conflicts in merge for linux-next >> >>OK, this has gotten a bit out of control, to the point where I cannot >>solve this myself. This is partially due to me being on the road and >>not keeping a close enough eye on the various video patches. >> >>I've pushed a new 'davinci-next' branch to davinci git[1] which is >>what I would like to make available for linux-next. This includes all >>the patches from davinci git master which touch >>arch/arm/mach-davinci/*. >> >>I then went to do a test a merge of the master branch of Mauro's >>linux-next tree, and there are lots of conflicts. Some are trivial to >>resolve (the various I2C_BOARD_INFO() conflicts) but others are more >>difficult, and someone more familar with the video drivers should sort >>them out. >> >>The two patches from davinci master that seem to be causing all the >>problems are: >> >> ARM: DaVinci: DM646x Video: Platform and board specific setup >> davinci: video: restructuring to support vpif capture driver >> >>These cause the conflicts with the v4l2 next tree. So, in >>davinci-next I've dropped these two patches. >> >>I think the way to fix this is for someone to take all the board >>changes from the v4l2 tree and rebase them on top of my davinci-next, >>dropping them from v4l2 next. I'll then merge them into davinci-next, >>and this should make the two trees merge properly in linux-next. >> >>We need to get this sorted out soon so that they can be merged for the >>next merge window. >> >>Going forward, I would prefer that all changes to arch/arm/* stuff go >>through davinci git and all drivers/* stuff goes through V4L2. This >>will avoid this kind of overlap/conflict in the future since DaVinci >>core code is going through lots of changes. >> >>Kevin >> >>[1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/khilman/linux-davinci.git -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
