Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752782AbbETJrw (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 May 2015 05:47:52 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com ([209.85.214.181]:34115 "EHLO mail-ob0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751524AbbETJrq (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 May 2015 05:47:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150520091646.GF3338@piout.net> References: <20150520102743.3d336a73@canb.auug.org.au> <20150520091646.GF3338@piout.net> Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 11:47:45 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ldVLlWTBCSfgF0wWjsGfAOmo5Hs Message-ID: Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the samsung tree with the arm-soc and at91 trees From: Geert Uytterhoeven To: Alexandre Belloni Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Stephen Rothwell , Kukjin Kim , Olof Johansson , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Nicolas Ferre , Linux-Next , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Ard Biesheuvel , Geert Uytterhoeven , Masahiro Yamada , Lee Jones , Maxime Coquelin , Baruch Siach , Javier Martinez Canillas Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1893 Lines: 48 On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > On 20/05/2015 at 09:35:36 +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote : >> 2015-05-20 9:27 GMT+09:00 Stephen Rothwell : >> > Today's linux-next merge of the samsung tree got a conflict in >> > arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig between various commits from the >> > arm-soc and at91 trees and various commits from the samsung tree. >> > >> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action >> > is required). >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for the merge. >> >> The parts coming from samsung-soc related to manually toggling stuff >> (by me and Javier) look fine. The rest (coming from Kukjin's >> savedefconfig) I don't know - too much of them. >> > > Hum, last time I asked, we were not supposed to do a savedefconfig on > multi_v7... Yeah, IMHO it's something the arm-soc maintainers should do only right after rc1. Doing it at any other point in time may remove options that have just been added to multi_v7_defconfig by an arm-soc submaintainer, and that depend on a Kconfig change queued in another maintainer's for-next branch. Personally, I think no arm-soc submaintainer should touch multi_v7_defconfig, and all changes should be applied by the arm-soc maintainers. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/