On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:15 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 21 June 2013, Jason Cooper wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:30:47AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Friday 21 June 2013, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > > > I am by far not an expert on how to solve merge strategies and so on, > > > > but to avoid conflicts at Linus's level while merging the arm-soc and > > > > pci trees, it would be better if this Samsung PCIe driver could go > > > > through arm-soc (with Bjorn ACK, of course), so that Arnd/Olof can > > > > make sure the ordering is correct with regard to the of/pci changes and > > > > the mvebu/pci driver. Yes, right. That is the reason why I based on 'linu-next' tree, instead of 'PCI' -next branch. Bjorn Helgaas, Could you give your ACK? Thank you. Best regards, Jingoo Han > > > > > > Yes, good point. > > > > > > The alternative would be that Bjorn also takes the PCI branch dependencies > > > that are already in arm-soc into his tree. Either way works, but I agree > > > that what you suggest would be simpler. > > > > Yes, that is why we did it this way. It was my understanding based on > > previous comments by yourself and LinusW that you both had patches > > depending on (now called) mvebu/of_pci. So we got it into arm-soc > > early so those branches could depend on it. > > Right. I wasn't paying enough attention for the early merges that > Olof did. > > Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |