[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vd=8d6upXK4f-tKQopQR649oSU_TeZYzu=epOf-0DznSA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:03:01 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@...el.com>,
Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the i2c tree
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> wrote:
>
>> > Well, not knowing much about ACPI, I just need the conflict resolution
>> > for my latest i2c/for-next and your above branch. If you want to do it,
>> > fine with me. But maybe Jarkko will be back to office on Monday, too.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I don't see how these branches can be merged in a sensible
>> way without adding too much new code into the merge itself.
>>
>> Something needs to be dropped and then rebased and applied again.
>
> Okay, I'll drop the I2C parts. Next to the core parts which I will drop,
> there was also a driver patch making use of the core changes for which I
> requested some updates. Since those did not happen yet (Jarkko on
> holiday?), the core patches alone are not important anyhow.
Jarkko and Mika are on holidays, I recently noticed this thread,
sorry. For now your solution seems okay, since we can't push broken
parts into v4.8-rc1.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists