[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <991a8520-5bb9-a4cd-8dc0-38ac2f76571d@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2019 02:43:44 +0200
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
maxime.ripard@...tlin.com, andre.przywara@....com,
samuel@...lland.org,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2
On 03/05/2019 00:03, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Thu, 2 May 2019 22:09:49 +0200 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I picked the patch and it was merged it via the tip tree [1] as
>> requested by Marc Zyngier [2] and notified [3].
>>
>> In any case, this patch should have go through my tree initially, so if
>> it is found somewhere else that's wrong.
>>
>> I did a respin of my branch and pushed it again in case there was
>> something wrong from it.
>
> The patch ("clocksource/drivers/arch_timer: Workaround for Allwinner
> A64 timer instability") was merged into v5.1-rc1 via the tip tree as
> you say, however the version of your clockevents tree in yesterday's
> linux-next was based on v5.0-rc1 and contained the patch again ...
>
> Today's should be better.
Oh, ok. As I updated the branch today before having this merge conflict
I thought the problem was coming from somewhere else. Thanks for the update.
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists