Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mux tree with the i2c tree

[Peter Rosin]

On 2017-04-18 07:59, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the mux tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   drivers/i2c/muxes/Makefile
>   drivers/i2c/muxes/Kconfig
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   dbed8a803bd3 ("i2c: mux: ltc4306: LTC4306 and LTC4305 I2C multiplexer/switch")
> 
> from the i2c tree and commit:
> 
>   69c689cbeefa ("i2c: i2c-mux-gpmux: new driver")
> 
> from the mux tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.

This is trivial IMHO, and I see no need to juggle with immutable branches
etc. Or maybe the whole thing is moot since it is getting late for the mux
series anyway, but the only one who can answer that is Greg.

So Greg, any news on the timeline for the mux series? BTW, other people are
starting to take an interest, see

  http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg1377069.html

They apparently need to mux video with either gpio pins or a syscon/mmio
register and the new mux subsystem abstracts this nicely for them.

Also Greg, if it indeed is too late for the mux series to hit 4.12, should
I then remove it from linux-next? And then simply wait for it to hit -next
when you take it? I only had it added to -next in the first place since I
was deluded and thought you would pull it from my mux repo, and wanted early
feedback from autobuilders etc before making the pull request. But as it
turned out, you wanted raw patches...

However, I'm reluctant to take it out of -next, since that may cause
trouble for the above new users?

Cheers,
peda