[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOesGMimJxYLor11EQ-Cn9BnZGg60VrOFC8ZqBdC+wNunptm8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:02:47 -0800
From: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the arm-perf tree
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8960-cdp.dts between commit a1d711938959 ("ARM:
> dts: msm: Add krait-pmu to platforms with Krait CPUs") from the arm-perf
> tree and commit cc60a1a4d47a ("ARM: dts: msm: split out msm8660 and
> msm8960 soc into dts include") from the arm-soc tree.
>
> I fixed it up (probably not the best way ... see below) and can carry the
> fix as necessary (no action is required).
Will, I think we'll be better off taking dts changes through arm-soc,
unless there's a good reason to take them through other trees (such as
the perf tree in this case). Is there, or should we move them over?
-Olof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists