Dear Jason Cooper,

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 09:15:47 -0400, Jason Cooper wrote:

quoted

A quick diagram of the dependencies, best viewed with a fixed-size font
mailer.

kernel/irq/irqdomain    drivers/pci        arch/arm/kernel
     patch 1           patch 2, 3, 4           patch 8
        ||                  ||                   ||
        ||                  \/                   \/
        ||               drivers/of   ==> drivers/pci/host
        ||                patch 5           patch 10
        ||                  ||
        \\__________________//
                  ||
                  \/
            drivers/irqchip
              patch 6, 7

Well, that got more complicated.  :(  No cookie for you.

Yeah, sorry about this. I'm not sure how to handle that differently.

quoted

Patches 9 and 11 are DT patches, so they are not mentioned in this
diagram.

Normally tegra would require 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8, so ideally, with
the respective maintainers ACKs, Jason Cooper could take them in a
specific topic stable branch that would not be rebased, on top of which
both the Marvell work and Tegra work could be done.

After my recent discussions with tglx, here's my proposal:

- rmk creates a dedicated topic branch with patch 8

- Bjorn creates a dedicated topic branch based on rmk's with 2, 3, 4, 5,
  and 10

- tglx creates a dedicated topic branch based on Bjorn's with 1, 6, 7

I am wondering if this merge strategy isn't too complicated to work
nicely. Would it be easier if one person took all of those patches in a
stable topic branch, with the ACKs from the proper maintainers?

But anyway, as long as things get merged, I don't really mind what
merge strategy is used, so I'll trust on what will be the best option
on this.

Thanks a lot for taking care of this!

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com