Message ID | CACRpkdY92StLhPv4kpopf8JpU1+PtjrgrdFWdvP4F3fwp1-_Gg@mail.gmail.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On Wednesday 02 May 2012, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > Please separate this into more logical branches, e.g. > > > > 1. delete u5500 > > 2. add u9540 support > > The U9540 stuff was used as a base so when deleting U5500 and > this code is in close hamming-proximity so you will get > a lot of conflicts. Ok, I saw them. I think they are fine, but if they get too annoying, I will resolve the conflict myself before sending it upstream. I was mostly worried about the order of stuff, because we are removing the ixp2xxx socs in the cleanup branch already, which I want to send early on, so I probably woundn't have complained if you had them in the opposite order in your branch (removal first, then new stuff) so I could just have put the last cleanup commit into a branch by itself and let the other one be based on that. Anyway, separate pulls are best, so I'm happy now and have applied pulled your four branches into next/cleanup, next/newsoc, next/dt and next/cpuidle respectively. Thanks a lot! Arnd