On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:06:32PM +0200, Benoit Cousson wrote: > Hi Felipe > > On 27/08/2013 21:56, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >Hi, > > > >On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:30:21PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > >>On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:37:32PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >>>Hi, > >>> > >>>On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:37:32AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > >>>>On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 04:13:23PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > >>>>>On 08/27/2013 04:05 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote: > >>>>>>On 27/08/2013 16:02, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > >>>>>>>On 08/27/2013 03:57 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote: > >>>>>>>>+ Kevin, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>On 27/08/2013 15:53, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > >>>>>>>>>What do we do now? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Cannot you just merge the stable arm-soc/dt branch into your branch > >>>>>>>>before applying your patches? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>That is up to Greg. This changes sat in his usb-next tree for a while > >>>>>>>now. And before they hit Greg they were in Felipe's tree for a while. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>To be exact, last .dts change via USB was: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Author: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>>AuthorDate: Thu Jun 20 12:13:04 2013 +0200 > >>>>>>>Commit: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> > >>>>>>>CommitDate: Fri Aug 9 17:40:16 2013 +0300 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> usb: musb dma: add cppi41 dma driver > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Mmm, if that branch is supposed to be stable, I'm not sure it will be > >>>>>>doable... > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Maybe we should do the other way around? And merge usb-next into > >>>>>>arm-soc/dt. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Kevin, Olof? > >>>>> > >>>>>Please be aware that I have no response so far regarding [0] from Greg. > >>>>> > >>>>>[0] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg92595.html > >>>> > >>>>Nor will you, given that I am not the one to take these patches, Felipe > >>>>is. I noticed now that you said "please route around Felipe", but > >>>>sorry, no, I'm not going to do that unless there's a really good reason. > >>>>Felipe seems to be around at the moment, please work with him on this. > >>> > >>>If you will still take a 'part2' pull request from me, I can send you > >>>urgent bugfixes by friday. If I have some time left, I can even try to > >>>get that sorted out by tomorrow. > >> > >>For 3.12 stuff, like "fixes", sure, I can take them this week, that > >>should give us a week or so for linux-next testing, right? > > > >that's correct. I have most of them already queued up, let me just go > >over my linux-usb maildir again and make sure I got all the important > >stuff in. > > > >cheers, thanks for opening this 'window'. > > There are two patches in my DTS tree that conflict with the usb-next. > > I will remove that one (ARM: dts: AM33XX: don't redefine OCP bus and > device nodes) , as suggested by Olof, since it is the biggest source > of conflict from my tree. > > The second one is easily fixable, and Stephen already did it, but it > will be even better it you could take it in your tree. > This is the patch you did that I just slightly renamed (ARM: OMAP5: > dts: fix reg property size). I'm done with Pull requests for Greg. If the conflict is easy to solve, what's the problem in having the conflict to start with ? -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
