On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:09:33 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Em Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:44:01 +0000
> Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>
> > On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:17:56 +0100, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Hi Mark,
> > >
> > > On Thursday 13 March 2014 00:50:26 Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > Hi Greg,
> > > >
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in
> > > > drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-of.c between commit b9db140c1e4644d
> > > > ("[media] v4l: of: Support empty port nodes") from the v4l tree and
> > > > commit fd9fdb78a9bf ("[media] of: move graph helpers from
> > > > drivers/media/v4l2-core to drivers/of") from the staging tree.
> > > >
> > > > I fixed it up by essentially dropping the support for empty port nodes
> > > > since there were more context differences than I was comfortable with
> > > > in the changes in the new code.
> > >
> > > If I'm not mistaken the move of drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-of.c to
> > > drivers/of/of-graph.c has been canceled for v3.15 and related patches should
> > > be dropped from the for-next branches in the very near future (the v4l tree
> > > has already been rebased).
> >
> > I had not actually asked Mauro to revert,
>
> See:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/10/283
>
> There, you literally answered me that:
> "All trees containing the branch would need to be reverted."
"would" being the operative word. I then went on to say that because it
is messy, I would be okay with leaving it as is if my concerns are
addressed.
Sorry for the confusion.
g.
> and:
> "It means any tree containing that branch *must* be rewound."
>
> That's what I (unhappily) did.
>
> I won't reapply this series, but, instead, I'll simply wait for the
> staging tree to be merged before sending those patches upstream,
> before sending the topic branch with exynos 5 patches that depend on it.
>
> This way, I can add Stephen patch on such topic branch, to avoid
> compilation breakages after merged.
>
> > but the branch is still in rmk's
> > tree and linux-next. I do not think it needs to be cancelled.
>
> > I do still have issues about it as a generic pattern, but I'm happy with
> > the discussion so far and the documentation will be sorted before the
> > next kernel is released.
> >
> > g.
>
> Regards,
> Mauro
--
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
