[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2zc-hp_oE1+Q+RTugxeVPPc3jyrdceQ4+8t4Zw_=vHUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 14:29:15 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the arm tree
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 1:27 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/arm/mach-iop13xx/pci.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 4af014984273 ("ARM: 8871/1: iop13xx: Simplify iop13xx_atu{e,x}_pci_status checks")
>
> from the arm tree and commit:
>
> 59d3ae9a5bf6 ("ARM: remove Intel iop33x and iop13xx support")
>
> from the arm-soc tree.
>
> I fixed it up (the latter 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.
Yes, that's good. Russell, you could drop the patch from your tree if
you like, or let Linus handle the trivial conflict.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists