[U-Boot] Pull request for u-boot-arm -> u-boot?
Albert,
I was wondering when the next pull request for u-boot-arm/master -> u-boot/master was likely to be?
I asked because some changes to the Tegra USB driver went through the u-boot-tegra/master and hence are now in u-boot-arm/master, but not in u-boot-usb/master. I have some more USB driver changes which rely on the earlier USB patches, and these should really go through u-boot-usb/master rather than the Tegra/ARM tree. For this to happen, u-boot-usb/master needs to contain the patches currently in u-boot-arm/master, and the best way for that to happen is for those patches to get into u-boot/master so that u-boot-usb/master can merge them.
Or, should Marek just merge u-boot-arm/master into his tree directly?
Thanks.
On Monday, May 05, 2014 at 06:46:36 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
Albert,
I was wondering when the next pull request for u-boot-arm/master -> u-boot/master was likely to be?
I asked because some changes to the Tegra USB driver went through the u-boot-tegra/master and hence are now in u-boot-arm/master, but not in u-boot-usb/master. I have some more USB driver changes which rely on the earlier USB patches, and these should really go through u-boot-usb/master rather than the Tegra/ARM tree. For this to happen, u-boot-usb/master needs to contain the patches currently in u-boot-arm/master, and the best way for that to happen is for those patches to get into u-boot/master so that u-boot-usb/master can merge them.
Or, should Marek just merge u-boot-arm/master into his tree directly?
I will not merge u-boot-arm/master into my tree, no. I will wait for the higher- ups to solve this ... Albert, we're waiting :b
Best regards, Marek Vasut
Hi Marek,
On Mon, 5 May 2014 19:46:13 +0200, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On Monday, May 05, 2014 at 06:46:36 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
Albert,
I was wondering when the next pull request for u-boot-arm/master -> u-boot/master was likely to be?
I asked because some changes to the Tegra USB driver went through the u-boot-tegra/master and hence are now in u-boot-arm/master, but not in u-boot-usb/master. I have some more USB driver changes which rely on the earlier USB patches, and these should really go through u-boot-usb/master rather than the Tegra/ARM tree. For this to happen, u-boot-usb/master needs to contain the patches currently in u-boot-arm/master, and the best way for that to happen is for those patches to get into u-boot/master so that u-boot-usb/master can merge them.
Or, should Marek just merge u-boot-arm/master into his tree directly?
I will not merge u-boot-arm/master into my tree, no. I will wait for the higher- ups to solve this ... Albert, we're waiting :b
On it now.
Best regards, Marek Vasut
Amicalement,
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 10:46:36AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
Albert,
I was wondering when the next pull request for u-boot-arm/master -> u-boot/master was likely to be?
I asked because some changes to the Tegra USB driver went through the u-boot-tegra/master and hence are now in u-boot-arm/master, but not in u-boot-usb/master. I have some more USB driver changes which rely on the earlier USB patches, and these should really go through u-boot-usb/master rather than the Tegra/ARM tree. For this to happen, u-boot-usb/master needs to contain the patches currently in u-boot-arm/master, and the best way for that to happen is for those patches to get into u-boot/master so that u-boot-usb/master can merge them.
Or, should Marek just merge u-boot-arm/master into his tree directly?
There's also still a handful of outstanding other patches needing to go in, and really, I'm fine with more frequent PRs rather than waiting for everyone elses to percolate up and then get one with everything.
Hi Tom,
On Mon, 5 May 2014 13:46:54 -0400, Tom Rini trini@ti.com wrote:
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 10:46:36AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
Albert,
I was wondering when the next pull request for u-boot-arm/master -> u-boot/master was likely to be?
I asked because some changes to the Tegra USB driver went through the u-boot-tegra/master and hence are now in u-boot-arm/master, but not in u-boot-usb/master. I have some more USB driver changes which rely on the earlier USB patches, and these should really go through u-boot-usb/master rather than the Tegra/ARM tree. For this to happen, u-boot-usb/master needs to contain the patches currently in u-boot-arm/master, and the best way for that to happen is for those patches to get into u-boot/master so that u-boot-usb/master can merge them.
Or, should Marek just merge u-boot-arm/master into his tree directly?
There's also still a handful of outstanding other patches needing to go in, and really, I'm fine with more frequent PRs rather than waiting for everyone elses to percolate up and then get one with everything.
I'll send out more frequent PRs.
Amicalement,
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Stephen Warren swarren@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
Albert,
I was wondering when the next pull request for u-boot-arm/master -> u-boot/master was likely to be?
I asked because some changes to the Tegra USB driver went through the u-boot-tegra/master and hence are now in u-boot-arm/master, but not in u-boot-usb/master. I have some more USB driver changes which rely on the earlier USB patches, and these should really go through u-boot-usb/master rather than the Tegra/ARM tree. For this to happen, u-boot-usb/master needs to contain the patches currently in u-boot-arm/master, and the best way for that to happen is for those patches to get into u-boot/master so that u-boot-usb/master can merge them.
Or, should Marek just merge u-boot-arm/master into his tree directly?
Or should we have a 'u-boot-next' tree using the same concept as the kernel 'linux-next'?
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Fabio Estevam festevam@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Stephen Warren swarren@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
Albert,
I was wondering when the next pull request for u-boot-arm/master -> u-boot/master was likely to be?
I asked because some changes to the Tegra USB driver went through the u-boot-tegra/master and hence are now in u-boot-arm/master, but not in u-boot-usb/master. I have some more USB driver changes which rely on the earlier USB patches, and these should really go through u-boot-usb/master rather than the Tegra/ARM tree. For this to happen, u-boot-usb/master needs to contain the patches currently in u-boot-arm/master, and the best way for that to happen is for those patches to get into u-boot/master so that u-boot-usb/master can merge them.
Or, should Marek just merge u-boot-arm/master into his tree directly?
Or should we have a 'u-boot-next' tree using the same concept as the kernel 'linux-next'?
Please, u-boot-next!
It is clear we need this to scale the pull model.
On Monday, May 05, 2014 at 08:12:18 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Fabio Estevam festevam@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Stephen Warren swarren@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
Albert,
I was wondering when the next pull request for u-boot-arm/master -> u-boot/master was likely to be?
I asked because some changes to the Tegra USB driver went through the u-boot-tegra/master and hence are now in u-boot-arm/master, but not in u-boot-usb/master. I have some more USB driver changes which rely on the earlier USB patches, and these should really go through u-boot-usb/master rather than the Tegra/ARM tree. For this to happen, u-boot-usb/master needs to contain the patches currently in u-boot-arm/master, and the best way for that to happen is for those patches to get into u-boot/master so that u-boot-usb/master can merge them.
Or, should Marek just merge u-boot-arm/master into his tree directly?
Or should we have a 'u-boot-next' tree using the same concept as the kernel 'linux-next'?
Please, u-boot-next!
It is clear we need this to scale the pull model.
As Stephen already explained, u-boot-next solves nothing. U-boot-next will actually be explicitly unhelpful here because I won't be able to work on top of it and then send PRs to Tom . This just cannot work as it would break history .
Best regards, Marek Vasut
On 05/05/2014 11:59 AM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Stephen Warren swarren@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
Albert,
I was wondering when the next pull request for u-boot-arm/master -> u-boot/master was likely to be?
I asked because some changes to the Tegra USB driver went through the u-boot-tegra/master and hence are now in u-boot-arm/master, but not in u-boot-usb/master. I have some more USB driver changes which rely on the earlier USB patches, and these should really go through u-boot-usb/master rather than the Tegra/ARM tree. For this to happen, u-boot-usb/master needs to contain the patches currently in u-boot-arm/master, and the best way for that to happen is for those patches to get into u-boot/master so that u-boot-usb/master can merge them.
Or, should Marek just merge u-boot-arm/master into his tree directly?
Or should we have a 'u-boot-next' tree using the same concept as the kernel 'linux-next'?
Having a u-boot-next won't solve this particular problem in any way.
Having a u-boot-next allows any end-developer to develop on top of the combined code in all trees, thus detecting/avoiding any conflicts with them.
However, my issue above is that a patch that's already applied in tree A needs to make its way into tree B, so that further patches can be *applied* in tree B. This is all about applying patches, not developing patches. The existence (or not) of a u-boot-next tree doesn't affect this issue at all.
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 12:15:50PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 05/05/2014 11:59 AM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Stephen Warren swarren@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
Albert,
I was wondering when the next pull request for u-boot-arm/master -> u-boot/master was likely to be?
I asked because some changes to the Tegra USB driver went through the u-boot-tegra/master and hence are now in u-boot-arm/master, but not in u-boot-usb/master. I have some more USB driver changes which rely on the earlier USB patches, and these should really go through u-boot-usb/master rather than the Tegra/ARM tree. For this to happen, u-boot-usb/master needs to contain the patches currently in u-boot-arm/master, and the best way for that to happen is for those patches to get into u-boot/master so that u-boot-usb/master can merge them.
Or, should Marek just merge u-boot-arm/master into his tree directly?
Or should we have a 'u-boot-next' tree using the same concept as the kernel 'linux-next'?
Having a u-boot-next won't solve this particular problem in any way.
Having a u-boot-next allows any end-developer to develop on top of the combined code in all trees, thus detecting/avoiding any conflicts with them.
However, my issue above is that a patch that's already applied in tree A needs to make its way into tree B, so that further patches can be *applied* in tree B. This is all about applying patches, not developing patches. The existence (or not) of a u-boot-next tree doesn't affect this issue at all.
This is in fact a usual problem in Linux land where it seems like we have much more stringent rules on how things can go in. So long as people can collect the needed acks, I'm fine pulling things that touch a few areas into master.
On 05/05/2014 12:40 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 12:15:50PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 05/05/2014 11:59 AM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Stephen Warren swarren@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
Albert,
I was wondering when the next pull request for u-boot-arm/master -> u-boot/master was likely to be?
I asked because some changes to the Tegra USB driver went through the u-boot-tegra/master and hence are now in u-boot-arm/master, but not in u-boot-usb/master. I have some more USB driver changes which rely on the earlier USB patches, and these should really go through u-boot-usb/master rather than the Tegra/ARM tree. For this to happen, u-boot-usb/master needs to contain the patches currently in u-boot-arm/master, and the best way for that to happen is for those patches to get into u-boot/master so that u-boot-usb/master can merge them.
Or, should Marek just merge u-boot-arm/master into his tree directly?
Or should we have a 'u-boot-next' tree using the same concept as the kernel 'linux-next'?
Having a u-boot-next won't solve this particular problem in any way.
Having a u-boot-next allows any end-developer to develop on top of the combined code in all trees, thus detecting/avoiding any conflicts with them.
However, my issue above is that a patch that's already applied in tree A needs to make its way into tree B, so that further patches can be *applied* in tree B. This is all about applying patches, not developing patches. The existence (or not) of a u-boot-next tree doesn't affect this issue at all.
This is in fact a usual problem in Linux land where it seems like we have much more stringent rules on how things can go in. So long as people can collect the needed acks, I'm fine pulling things that touch a few areas into master.
In Linux, cross-repo dependencies are often dealt with by:
a) If the dependency is known up-front: Create a branch based on a recent mainline release, apply the few dependency patches there, then merge this topic branch into multiple repos/branches as a baseline for future work.
b) If the dependency is noticed later, then merge the source branch into the destination branch when the dependencies show up. This ends up pulling in more patches than you need/want into the merge target if the merge source wasn't using topic branches, so isn't a great solution, and isn't done too much.
In general, the situation we that caused me to start the thread is avoided by disallowing patches for e.g. USB drivers to go through anything but the USB tree, unless special arrangements are made to do (a). (a) would allow the conflict to be resolved quickly in the relevant subsystem trees rather than through Linus.
On Monday, May 05, 2014 at 08:40:34 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 12:15:50PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 05/05/2014 11:59 AM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Stephen Warren swarren@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
Albert,
I was wondering when the next pull request for u-boot-arm/master -> u-boot/master was likely to be?
I asked because some changes to the Tegra USB driver went through the u-boot-tegra/master and hence are now in u-boot-arm/master, but not in u-boot-usb/master. I have some more USB driver changes which rely on the earlier USB patches, and these should really go through u-boot-usb/master rather than the Tegra/ARM tree. For this to happen, u-boot-usb/master needs to contain the patches currently in u-boot-arm/master, and the best way for that to happen is for those patches to get into u-boot/master so that u-boot-usb/master can merge them.
Or, should Marek just merge u-boot-arm/master into his tree directly?
Or should we have a 'u-boot-next' tree using the same concept as the kernel 'linux-next'?
Having a u-boot-next won't solve this particular problem in any way.
Having a u-boot-next allows any end-developer to develop on top of the combined code in all trees, thus detecting/avoiding any conflicts with them.
However, my issue above is that a patch that's already applied in tree A needs to make its way into tree B, so that further patches can be *applied* in tree B. This is all about applying patches, not developing patches. The existence (or not) of a u-boot-next tree doesn't affect this issue at all.
This is in fact a usual problem in Linux land where it seems like we have much more stringent rules on how things can go in. So long as people can collect the needed acks, I'm fine pulling things that touch a few areas into master.
The problem here is that I cannot apply the USB patches from Stephen until Albert gets his stuff into U-Boot/master, which I would then merge back into mine. Only then I can apply the USB patches. So we're waiting for Albert ...
Best regards, Marek Vasut
participants (6)
-
Albert ARIBAUD -
Fabio Estevam -
Marek Vasut -
Otavio Salvador -
Stephen Warren -
Tom Rini