[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYT9Zr+9gJgBU9RoJM_Yn32fv2AO_Y+URYW+NTyFOa+fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 08:52:00 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gpio tree with the arm-soc tree
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:05:42 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the gpio tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-peripherals.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> 9b7141d01a76 ("ARM: OMAP2+: Drop legacy board file for n900")
>>
>> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>>
>> 9132ce450bd1 ("ARM: omap2: fix missing include")
>>
>> from the gpio tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (the former removed the file, so I did that) 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.
>
> Since Linus (Torvalds) has merged the gpio tree, this conflict (and
> file removal) now affects the merge of the arm-soc tree).
Yup and I also informed him in my pull request about this conflict
so shouldn't be a problem.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists