linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the usb tree

[Benoit Cousson]

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