linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl tree with the arm-soc tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170131162951.3de4bcd6@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:29:51 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl tree with the arm-soc tree

Hi Linus,

Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl tree got a conflict in:

  arch/arm/mach-exynos/suspend.c

between commit:

  b4765037fc8c ("ARM: EXYNOS: Constify list of retention registers")

from the arm-soc tree and commit:

  07731019c59c ("pinctrl: samsung: Move retention control from mach-exynos to the pinctrl driver")

from the pinctrl tree.

I fixed it up (the latter removed the code updated by the former, so I
just 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell