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

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Benoit Cousson <bcousson at 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 <bigeasy at linutronix.de>
>>>>>>>> AuthorDate: Thu Jun 20 12:13:04 2013 +0200
>>>>>>>> Commit:     Felipe Balbi <balbi at 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