Re: [GIT PULL] omap changes for v2.6.39 merge window

From: Uwe Kleine-König
Date: Fri Mar 18 2011 - 07:13:42 EST

Hello Russell,

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:15:12AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 07:50:36PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > The pure amount of crazy churn is annoying in itself,
> > but when I then get these "independent" pull requests from four
> > different people, and they touch the same files, that indicates that
> > something is wrong.
> I have already complained to Uwe and Sascha about the IMX/MXC conflicts.
> It already struck me that there's something seriously wrong at
> as both Uwe and Sascha work in the same area, yet don't
> coordinate their efforts. It seems to me that Uwe is completely
> independent of everyone else.
I feel blamed wrongly here. My part of the "crazy churn" in
v2.6.38..$todayslinus/master is that I touched drivers/net/Kconfig[1] and
arch/arm/mach-mxs/gpio.c[2]. The former went in via the net tree; the
latter via Russell's tree with Sascha's Ack. Please correct me if I'm
wrong but I think this was the correct thing to do. I don't know how
that qualifies as "completely independent of everyone else".

IMHO the cooperation between Sascha and me works fine. In fact nearly
all[3] of my patches that touch imx related things under arch/arm/ go in
via Sascha's tree.

Best regards

[1] 085e79e (net/fec: consolidate all i.MX options to CONFIG_ARM)
[2] bf0c111 (ARM: 6744/1: mxs: irq_data conversion)
[3] Some exceptions I found are:
bf0c111 ARM: 6744/1: mxs: irq_data conversion
4df772d ARM: 6322/1: imx/pca100: Fix name of spi platform data
868003c ARM: 6280/1: imx: Fix build failure when including <mach/gpio.h> without <linux/spinlock.h>
All of these are OK IMHO.

Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | |
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at