Benoit Cousson <bcousson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > + Kevin, > > On 27/08/2013 15:53, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >> On 08/27/2013 03:24 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote: >>> Hi Sebatian, >> >> Hi Benoit, >> >>> Yes. DT patches are an endless source of merge conflicts if they are >>> merge throught different trees. >> >> Usually there are small conflicts because two people added / changed a >> node nearby. This patch turned the .dts file almost upside down. > > Yes, that's true. > >>> What was discussed with Olof and Arnd during Connect is that we should >>> avoid merging DT patches outside arm-soc tree to avoid that kind of >>> situation. >> >> I am aware of this now. However these changes belonged together because >> a) they belonged together and b) would break the driver until the .dts >> changes and driver code is in-sync. >> In future I am going to ask you for a topic branch so I can get my >> changes in one piece without breaking stuff in the middle. >> >> 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. 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. Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
