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

[Benoit Cousson]

On 29/08/2013 16:23, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:06:32PM +0200, Benoit Cousson 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.
>>
>> 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).
>
> I'm done with Pull requests for Greg. If the conflict is easy to solve,
> what's the problem in having the conflict to start with ?

Well, it is mainly the other one that is a pain to fix. Since I was 
about to send another pull-request, I was wondering if you'll be OK to 
take it.

Regards,
Benoit