Thomas (tglx), Russell (rmk), Please see my request below. On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:49:21AM -0700, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 03:39:11PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > Dear Jason Cooper, > > > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 09:15:47 -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > > > > A quick diagram of the dependencies, best viewed with a fixed-size font > > > > mailer. > > > > > > > > kernel/irq/irqdomain drivers/pci arch/arm/kernel > > > > patch 1 patch 2, 3, 4 patch 8 > > > > || || || > > > > || \/ \/ > > > > || drivers/of ==> drivers/pci/host > > > > || patch 5 patch 10 > > > > || || > > > > \\__________________// > > > > || > > > > \/ > > > > drivers/irqchip > > > > patch 6, 7 > > > > > > Well, that got more complicated. :( No cookie for you. > > > > Yeah, sorry about this. I'm not sure how to handle that differently. > > > > > > Patches 9 and 11 are DT patches, so they are not mentioned in this > > > > diagram. > > > > > > > > Normally tegra would require 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8, so ideally, with > > > > the respective maintainers ACKs, Jason Cooper could take them in a > > > > specific topic stable branch that would not be rebased, on top of which > > > > both the Marvell work and Tegra work could be done. > > > > > > After my recent discussions with tglx, here's my proposal: > > > > > > - rmk creates a dedicated topic branch with patch 8 > > > > > > - Bjorn creates a dedicated topic branch based on rmk's with 2, 3, 4, 5, > > > and 10 > > > > > > - tglx creates a dedicated topic branch based on Bjorn's with 1, 6, 7 > > > > I am wondering if this merge strategy isn't too complicated to work > > nicely. Would it be easier if one person took all of those patches in a > > stable topic branch, with the ACKs from the proper maintainers? > > > > But anyway, as long as things get merged, I don't really mind what > > merge strategy is used, so I'll trust on what will be the best option > > on this. > > > > Thanks a lot for taking care of this! > > Hi Thomas, Jason, > > I've talked this over with Stephen and he'd be willing to create the > stable branch with patches 2, 4 and 8. That could serve as the basis > for both Tegra and Marvell. > > Given that there are no cross-dependencies for any of the other patches > (that I'm aware of) it would probably be easier to take them through the > Marvell tree if Bjorn and Thomas (tglx) agree to Ack the patches. Ok, this is getting complicated again. :( I'm all for adhering to Thomas' (tglx) request that all clocksource and irqchip patches go through his tree. However, this series is just a hot-dependency mess. Thomas, Russell, can you please cut me a little slack on this series and Ack your respective patches (tglx: #1, #6, #7; rmk: #8) for going through arm-soc? I know it's not the proper way, but I could have this series in -next tomorrow with a public branch for Thierry. The alternative is turning into a Rube Goldberg machine [1]. thx, Jason. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg_machine -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
