Hi Tom, Am Mittwoch, den 05.09.2012, 09:25 -0700 schrieb Tom Warren: > Igor/Marek, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marek Vasut [mailto:ma...@denx.de] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 1:52 AM > > To: Igor Grinberg > > Cc: Lucas Stach; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Stephen Warren; Tom Warren > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] usb: ulpi: add indicator configuration function > > > > Dear Igor Grinberg, > > > > > Hi Lucas, Tom, > > > > > > I'm sorry for the late reply. > > > I understand, that Tom has already applied this to tegra/next, but as > > > the changes/follow up patches are required, may be we can do this in > > > another fashion... > > > > > > 1) Thanks for the patch and working on extending the generic framework! > > > 2) This patch has no dependencies on tegra specific patches, so > > > I think, it should go through Marex usb tree, but doing this will > > > require the right merge order, so bisectability will not suffer. > > > So, Marek, Tom, you should decide which way is fine with you both. > > I'm not sure how the USB and Tegra repos can coordinate on patches like this, > since I don't pull from/rebase against USB, and AFAIK Marek doesn't reference > Tegra when he updates his repo. I'm a sub-repo of ARM, which is a sub-repo of > TOT (u-boot/master). What I usually do (and have always done) is to take the > entire patchset that includes a Tegra component (USB, mmc, SPI, etc.) and > hope (pray?) that anyone merging my changes upstream of me will be able to > resolve the conflicts/pre-existing patches. So far, I haven't heard from > anyone (Albert or Wolfgang) that's had a problem with that, perhaps because > it's pretty rare. AFAICT, there's no other procedure outlined in the U-Boot > wiki custodian's page. If there's a better procedure I should be following, > let's get it documented and I'll be glad to hew to the line. I'm still on the > learning curve for git merging, rebasing, etc. > I thought about how we could merge all this without loosing our sanity. I've already wrote this a bit hidden in a reply to the multi controller thread: I think it's best to handle all USB related changes through the u-boot-usb tree, as all this stuff should really be under drivers/usb.
This means: I'll split out the clock output related changes, so they can go in the Tegra tree. Everything touching USB goes into the u-boot-usb tree and I'll rebase my changes accordingly. This also means commit "dm: Tegra: Staticize local functions" should be removed from the Tegra tree and move over to the USB tree. This way we won't get any build breakages and there should be no merge conflicts. It also opens the possibility to move the Tegra USB implementation to the right location in the source tree a bit later in this cycle, without messing up the merge. Thanks, Lucas _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
