linux-next: manual merge of the bcm2835 tree with the arm-soc tree

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> On Monday 08 December 2014 13:00:09 Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Dec 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > 
> > > On Monday 08 December 2014 12:06:19 Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Hi Stephen,
> > > > 
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the bcm2835 tree got a conflict in
> > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile between commit 302a5ef29d49 ("ARM: BCM5301X:
> > > > Add DT for Netgear R6300 V2") from the arm-soc tree and commit
> > > > 6298ed17a404 ("ARM: bcm2835: Add device tree for Raspberry Pi model
> > > > B+") from the bcm2835 tree.
> > > > 
> > > > I fixed it up (the bcm2835 tree patch is also in the arm-soc tree as
> > > > commit ba2a1d6959ac ("ARM: bcm2835: Add device tree for Raspberry Pi
> > > > model B+"), so I just used the arm-soc version) and can carry the fix
> > > > as necessary (no action is required).
> > > 
> > > Thanks a lot for the notification!
> > > 
> > > Lee, do you know what is going on? Did you accidentally rebase a commit
> > > that you already sent for inclusion in arm-soc?
> > 
> > Nope.  The branch hasn't changed at all.
> > 
> > OOI why would a re-base affect anything?  I sent you it in patch form.
> 
> Ah, I looked at the wrong branch and didn't see that I applied a patch
> instead of a pull request. It's all fine then, as long as you never
> intend to send any pull requests based on top of your current branch.
> 
> You can possibly make Stephen's life a tiny bit simpler if you just
> drop all patches from your for-next branch as soon as we've picked
> them up into arm-soc.

That is something I thought about, but I believe we have users of that
branch.  I guess we could always point them to ARM-SoC, or reset the
branch to the aforementioned.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog