On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 11:53:22AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Jason Cooper <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 03:51:11PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > >> Cases like these are easiest that we just take the patch directly in > >> an early-merge branch (i.e. cleanup or fixes-non-critical, or a > >> generic depends branch), and if there's conflicts as topics are merged > >> in from subplatforms we can deal with it then. > > > > Are you referring to basing on -rc1, or the series being split up to > > the individual sub-arch maintainers? > > > > *slightly* confused, > > I'm referring to us taking the patch into something like our cleanup > branch, and any branches that come in from you or other subplatforms > will be merged on top, so we can resolve conflicts there and then. > We'll merge in the cleanup branch into other next/* branches as needed > to resolve the conflicts in our tree instead of percolating them all > the way up. In case you didn't notice, I already had split up the patch series a little more for v2 (based on -rc1 still), and most of it seems to be going through the sub-arch trees, I think. There is one patch targeted directly at arm-soc (that's you, Olof?). Let me know if v2 has any problems. Thanks, Brian _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel