From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759708AbaCTSvL (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:51:11 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-f54.google.com ([74.125.83.54]:38721 "EHLO mail-ee0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759465AbaCTSvG (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:51:06 -0400 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the tree To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Laurent Pinchart , Mark Brown , Greg KH , Philipp Zabel , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20140320140933.4218df22@samsung.com> References: <20140313005026.95bb2222270ded24b0a5deff@kernel.org> <3306881. foYD0IDJn0@avalon> <20140320154402.063BDC40A0B@trevor.secretlab.ca> < 20140320140933.4218df22@samsung.com> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:51:01 +0000 Message-Id: <20140320185101.ED471C4067A@trevor.secretlab.ca> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:09:33 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:44:01 +0000 > Grant Likely escreveu: > > > On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:17:56 +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > Hi Mark, > > > > > > On Thursday 13 March 2014 00:50:26 Mark Brown wrote: > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in > > > > drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-of.c between commit b9db140c1e4644d > > > > ("[media] v4l: of: Support empty port nodes") from the v4l tree and > > > > commit fd9fdb78a9bf ("[media] of: move graph helpers from > > > > drivers/media/v4l2-core to drivers/of") from the staging tree. > > > > > > > > I fixed it up by essentially dropping the support for empty port nodes > > > > since there were more context differences than I was comfortable with > > > > in the changes in the new code. > > > > > > If I'm not mistaken the move of drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-of.c to > > > drivers/of/of-graph.c has been canceled for v3.15 and related patches should > > > be dropped from the for-next branches in the very near future (the v4l tree > > > has already been rebased). > > > > I had not actually asked Mauro to revert, > > See: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/10/283 > > There, you literally answered me that: > "All trees containing the branch would need to be reverted." "would" being the operative word. I then went on to say that because it is messy, I would be okay with leaving it as is if my concerns are addressed. Sorry for the confusion. g. > and: > "It means any tree containing that branch *must* be rewound." > > That's what I (unhappily) did. > > I won't reapply this series, but, instead, I'll simply wait for the > staging tree to be merged before sending those patches upstream, > before sending the topic branch with exynos 5 patches that depend on it. > > This way, I can add Stephen patch on such topic branch, to avoid > compilation breakages after merged. > > > but the branch is still in rmk's > > tree and linux-next. I do not think it needs to be cancelled. > > > I do still have issues about it as a generic pattern, but I'm happy with > > the discussion so far and the documentation will be sorted before the > > next kernel is released. > > > > g. > > Regards, > Mauro