On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 03:51:11PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Jason Cooper <ja...@lakedaemon.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:06:03PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > >> Hi Stephen, > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:39:37AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> > On 04/17/2014 01:21 AM, Brian Norris wrote: > >> > > These defconfigs contain the CONFIG_M25P80 symbol, which is now > >> > > dependent on the MTD_SPI_NOR symbol. Add CONFIG_MTD_SPI_NOR to the > >> > > relevant defconfigs. > >> > > > >> > > At the same time, drop the now-nonexistent CONFIG_MTD_CHAR symbol. > >> > > >> > I hadn't realized that the problem this patch solves was already present > >> > in the code, so this patch is simply catching up the defconfigs rather > >> > than part of a series which changed the code to cause the problem. > >> > >> Yes, this is "catching up the defconfigs." The SPI_NOR framework is new, > >> and I didn't want to generate defconfig noise until a few things > >> stabilized (particularly, its Kconfig symbol name). > >> > >> > So, this needs to be applied ASAP. > >> > > >> > I think this should be split it up so that each defconfig can go through > >> > the tree that owns it to avoid conflicts. If you repost split up, I can > >> > apply the tegra_defconfig change to the Tegra tree. > >> > >> OK, I'll try to split it up. Is ARM unique in tracking defconfigs in > >> separate trees? I assume MIPS, PowerPC, and Blackfin won't require the > >> same splitting? I'd like to avoid 31 patches when <20 could suffice. > > > > wrt arm-soc, typically they take all changes to multi_v7_defconfig > > directly since it is prone to conflicts. All the other ones are managed > > by the individual sub-arch maintainers. > > > >> I'll also rebase on linux-next. I think there may be a few conflicts. > > > > I can't speak for the other sub-archs, but I typically prefer that > > patches be based on an -rc tag, -rc1 if possible. > > This is making a trivial patch a pain to get merged.
Sorry. > Cases like these are easiest that we just take the patch directly in > an early-merge branch (i.e. cleanup or fixes-non-critical, or a > generic depends branch), and if there's conflicts as topics are merged > in from subplatforms we can deal with it then. Are you referring to basing on -rc1, or the series being split up to the individual sub-arch maintainers? *slightly* confused, Jason. -- 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/