On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 10:24:42AM +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 1:22 PM > > To: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>; David Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxx>; arcml <linux-snps- > > arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Eugeniy Paltsev <paltsev@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] drm/arc: Yet another set of minor fixes > > > > [snip] > > > > Not sure if you noticed re-spin of my pull-request in the previous message. > > > Do you want me to send it in a separate email? > > > > Yeah I guess this got lost again. > > So should I re-send it in another email or you will pick it up > from existing thread? > > If I'm going to re-send it do I need to re-base it on today's drm/drm-next? I just tried to vacuum it in, but it chokes the scripts since it's multiple pull requests in one mail with quotes. So please redo in a clean mail. Wrt baseline, here's the recommendation in order of my preference: - Just stuff it into drm-misc-next - Base your tree on a tag from Linux - If you need a specific depedency, base your tree on drm-next with that patch included. - If it's even more complicated, do a multi-way topic branch with lots of coordination. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
