[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3kHO1NZFJXvDwWO625aEmXoo2540FRKe+YYzoYE9NCSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 07:53:57 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in:
>
> include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h
>
> between commit:
>
> 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains")
>
> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>
> 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains")
>
> from the pm tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) 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.
Dave, Santosh,
any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong
version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc?
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists