[GIT PULL v2 00/27] Renesas ARM-based SoC updates for v3.11

Olof Johansson olof at lixom.net
Tue Jun 11 04:12:34 EDT 2013


On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:23:40AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Olof Johansson <olof at lixom.net> wrote:
>> > Hi Simon,
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 04:51:30PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
>> >> Hi Olof, Hi Arnd,
>> >>
>> >> The following changes since commit c7788792a5e7b0d5d7f96d0766b4cb6112d47d75:
>> >>
>> >>   Linux 3.10-rc2 (2013-05-20 14:37:38 -0700)
>> >>
>> >> are available in the git repository at:
>> >>
>> >>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/horms/renesas.git tags/renesas-soc-for-v3.11
>> >
>> > Thanks a lot for reshuffling the patches into the categories we use!
>> >
>> > For future cases, if you want to split off the cleanups you can do that as
>> > a separate branch, and use that branch as a base for feature branches. Either
>> > way works, sometimes it's nice to see cleanups separated out but it all depends
>> > on volumes, etc.
>> >
>> >
>> > Pulled into next/soc.
>>
>> Actually, I just noticed that this caused a few conflicts with the
>> pinmux-gpio branch you sent earlier. So I've moved said pinmux/gpio
>> branch into next/soc instead of next/drivers where it was earlier.
>> Please also check my conflict resolution once the branch has been
>> pushed out.
>
> Thanks. I have checked and your conflict resolution is the same as mine.
>
> This is an issue that I'm not entirely clear on the best practice for.
> Is it sufficient for me to note any conflicts in the pull-request,
> or in future should I re-arrange things somehow?

It's always good to get a heads up that there will be conflicts.
Simple conflicts like these are perfectly fine to expose though.

It's sometimes good to get a reference resolution of them from you --
for example in this case I had originally resolved the conflict
differently from you in your version of the merge (that was part of
the boards branch), so I had to go back and redo it to not cause extra
conflicts there.


-Olof



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list