From: marc.zyngier@arm•com (Marc Zyngier)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: Conflict between Versatile Express DT conversion and local timer updates
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:58:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F5F52A2.3050005@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201203131155.16454.arnd@arndb.de>
On 13/03/12 11:55, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 March 2012, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 13/03/12 10:15, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 09:39:57AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> On 13/03/12 01:23, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>>>>> <linux@arm•linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correction: I haven't been pushing out my devel-stable branch for
>>>>>> apparantly two months (according to gitweb, and no one noticed?), so I
>>>>>> could drop the merge of Marc's tree until the conflicts can be sanely
>>>>>> resolved.
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't noticed because I stopped tracking your tree directly when
>>>>> you were having server load issues; I tend to have kept an eye on
>>>>> linux-next-level breakage instead, but probably not as close as I
>>>>> should have.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dropping Marc's branch and having him either resubmit on top of
>>>>> arm-soc like the io cleanup was done, or pull it in as an early
>>>>> dependency for 3.5 and stage it in an for-armsoc branch sounds like
>>>>> two good options to me, with no real preference in either direction.
>>>>
>>>> I'm happy to rebase my patches on anything that will make the merge
>>>> easier (IOW conflict-less).
>>>>
>>>> Russell, would you prefer this series to go via armsoc? This seems the
>>>> cleanest solution for the time being.
>>>
>>> With a lot of these core ARM changes, there's a very fine line between
>>> whether they are core ARM changes or whether they're platform level
>>> changes (many core ARM changes will impact lots of platforms.) I'm just
>>> wondering if there's any point to taking these changes through my tree.
>>> It seems utterly pointless if they're going to keep conflicting with
>>> platform stuff.
>>
>> Fair enough.
>>
>> Olof, Arnd: which is the most base for you to take this series?
>
> I'm not sure I understand your question. The conflicts that Russell
> mentioned are with the ux500/timer (in next/soc) and with the
> vexpress/dt (in next/dt) branches. There are multiple ways out of
> here:
>
> a) take your series first, but merge it into the next/dt and next/soc
> branches, resolving the conflicts in the process. This would be
> fairly easy to do if you can provide the merge resolution as
> a git pull and let Russell still take your series as is.
>
> b) rebase your series on top of vexpress/dt, merge it into the next/soc
> branch.
>
> c) rebase your series on top of ux500/timer, merge it into the next/dt
> branch.
>
> d) create a new next/timer branch in arm-soc that has Pawel's
> 98ed4ceb "ARM: vexpress: Get rid of MMIO_P2V" (the first patch from
> vexpress/dt, your patches and the ux500/timer series. Also put
> 98ed4ceb into the next/cleanup branch.
>
> Any of those will work for us, my preference would be on #4. I have
> created the next/timer branch in the arm-soc tree, so you can use
> that and either rebase your patches on top or merge your tree into
> it and fix up the merge conflicts.
Thanks for doing that Arnd.
I've thus created a new branch:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git
local_timers-for-arm-soc
which contains the arm-soc next/timers branch as well as my local timers
series. I'd greatly appreciate if you could pull it for 3.4.
Thanks again,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-13 13:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-12 23:10 Conflict between Versatile Express DT conversion and local timer updates Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-03-12 23:59 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-03-13 1:23 ` Olof Johansson
2012-03-13 9:39 ` Marc Zyngier
2012-03-13 10:15 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-03-13 10:58 ` Marc Zyngier
2012-03-13 11:55 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-03-13 13:58 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2012-03-13 14:33 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-03-13 15:00 ` Marc Zyngier
2012-03-14 0:52 ` Olof Johansson
2012-03-14 8:43 ` Marc Zyngier
2012-03-15 7:17 ` Stephen Rothwell
2012-03-15 9:21 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-03-15 9:36 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-03-15 9:44 ` Stephen Rothwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F5F52A2.3050005@arm.com \
--to=marc.zyngier@arm$(echo .)com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox