Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:01:38 +0200 | From | Benoit Cousson <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the usb tree |
| |
Hi Olof,
On 27/08/2013 18:12, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 05:25:23PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >> On 08/27/2013 05:01 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >>>>> What do we do now? >>>> >>>> Cannot you just merge the stable arm-soc/dt branch into your branch >>>> before applying your patches? >>> >>> Unfortunately, the next/dt branch of arm-soc is not necessarily stable >>> so should *not* be merged. In fact none of the arm-soc branches should >>> be considered stable. >>> >>> As was already mentioned, this should be split up into driver changes >>> and DTS changes through arm-soc. They'll both merge for v3.12. >> >> But splitting will break the driver until .dts & code is in sync again. >> >>> BTW, how did this patch get merged without a signoff/ack from the OMAP >>> DT maintainer in the first place? Hmm, looks like Benoit was not copied >>> nor was linux-omap or linux-arm-kernel copied in the original mails. >> >> Hmm. I had Benoit's okay [0] to do the change "as long as Felipe is >> fine with it". I indeed forgot to Cc Benoit on the dts changes. >> For the phy-rename Felipe pinged you and we did the topic-branch, here >> I forgot. > > No. Read that email again. What Benoit said was that if Felipe was fine > with the change _HE_ would take it. Huge difference, and one that would have > avoided this situation. > > The only way to solve these things in the future is to make the driver handle > both the new and the old binding. Bindings are not supposed to change in > incompatible ways any more, unless for special circumstances and/or when the > old binding was completely broken. > > > The only way forward here, since Greg runs a stable tree that he doesn't > rebase, is for us to rebuild without the OMAP DT branch, and ask Benoit to take > out the conflicting changes. > > Benoit, I know this is none of your fault, but would you mind preparing a new > copy of the DT branch without the conflicting patches, and hold those to 3.13? > I haven't looked to see how many those were.
OK, I'll do that ASAP and check how many should be removed to avoid a conflict with usb-next.
Regards, Benoit
| |