On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Benoit Cousson <bcous...@baylibre.com> wrote: > Hi Felipe > > > On 27/08/2013 21:56, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:30:21PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:37:32PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:37:32AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 04:13:23PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 08/27/2013 04:05 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 27/08/2013 16:02, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 08/27/2013 03:57 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + Kevin, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 27/08/2013 15:53, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What do we do now? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cannot you just merge the stable arm-soc/dt branch into your branch >>>>>>>>> before applying your patches? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is up to Greg. This changes sat in his usb-next tree for a >>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>> now. And before they hit Greg they were in Felipe's tree for a >>>>>>>> while. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To be exact, last .dts change via USB was: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Author: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de> >>>>>>>> AuthorDate: Thu Jun 20 12:13:04 2013 +0200 >>>>>>>> Commit: Felipe Balbi <ba...@ti.com> >>>>>>>> CommitDate: Fri Aug 9 17:40:16 2013 +0300 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> usb: musb dma: add cppi41 dma driver >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mmm, if that branch is supposed to be stable, I'm not sure it will be >>>>>>> doable... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe we should do the other way around? And merge usb-next into >>>>>>> arm-soc/dt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kevin, Olof? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please be aware that I have no response so far regarding [0] from >>>>>> Greg. >>>>>> >>>>>> [0] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg92595.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nor will you, given that I am not the one to take these patches, Felipe >>>>> is. I noticed now that you said "please route around Felipe", but >>>>> sorry, no, I'm not going to do that unless there's a really good >>>>> reason. >>>>> Felipe seems to be around at the moment, please work with him on this. >>>> >>>> >>>> If you will still take a 'part2' pull request from me, I can send you >>>> urgent bugfixes by friday. If I have some time left, I can even try to >>>> get that sorted out by tomorrow. >>> >>> >>> For 3.12 stuff, like "fixes", sure, I can take them this week, that >>> should give us a week or so for linux-next testing, right? >> >> >> that's correct. I have most of them already queued up, let me just go >> over my linux-usb maildir again and make sure I got all the important >> stuff in. >> >> cheers, thanks for opening this 'window'. > > > There are two patches in my DTS tree that conflict with the usb-next. > > I will remove that one (ARM: dts: AM33XX: don't redefine OCP bus and device > nodes) , as suggested by Olof, since it is the biggest source of conflict > from my tree. >
Hi Benoit, Should I re-post this patch for 3.13 or do you think that the clean-up is not worth it due the high probability to lead to a merge conflict? I know is an intrusive change but a needed cleanup IMHO. People keep doing copy & paste with current am33xx DT and keep duplicating device nodes already existing in the included .dtsi file. I reviewed at least 2 new DTS that had the same issue. Also, this shouldn't had happened if all the OMAP DT patches went through your tree... > The second one is easily fixable, and Stephen already did it, but it will be > even better it you could take it in your tree. > This is the patch you did that I just slightly renamed (ARM: OMAP5: dts: fix > reg property size). > > Regards, > Benoit > Best regards, Javier -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
