[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201026085421.1536d873@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:54:21 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Yangtao Li <frank@...winnertech.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc
tree
Hi Maxime,
On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:20:17 +0200 Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 02:56:37PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a100.dtsi
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 0dea1794f3b4 ("arm64: allwinner: A100: add the basical Allwinner A100 DTSI file")
> >
> > from the arm-soc tree and commit:
> >
> > 7e66a778cb8b ("arm64: allwinner: A100: add the basical Allwinner A100 DTSI file")
> >
> > from the sunxi tree.
> >
> > These are 2 versions of the same patch. For now I am just using the
> > version in the arm-soc tree ... please sort this out.
>
> The branch in arm-soc has a build breakage (that doesn't happen in
> linux-next since the clk tree has the commit to fix it) so I sent a new
> PR
>
> Once that PR is in arm-soc, I guess that merge issue will go away
I am still getting the same conflict (but between Linus' tree and the
sunxi tree). It looks like the sunxi tree has not been updated since
October 6 ...
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists