From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kukjin Kim Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the s5p tree Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 03:00:09 -0700 Message-ID: <4F630F29.6020101@samsung.com> References: <20120316174546.5121be30a86c2937579bd3f5@canb.auug.org.au> <201203160826.36287.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:41442 "EHLO mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932386Ab2CPKAP (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:00:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <201203160826.36287.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Olof Johansson , Kukjin Kim , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On 03/16/12 01:26, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 16 March 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c between commit 1d7233ac478a ("Merge branch >> 'next/soc-exynos5250-arch-gpio' into for-next") from the s5p tree and >> commit 853a0231e057 ("Merge branch 'samsung/soc' into next/soc2") from >> the arm-soc tree. >> >> These merge commits both looks suspect, but I fixed it up as best I could >> (see below). > Thank you, Stehpen. > Right, both the arm-soc and the s5p tree merge the same commits and > come to different results. Kgene, please have a look and let me know > which of the three solutions is correct. > Yeah, my resolution is missing and both looks OK to me, actually it's just different the position of declaration for 'int ret' and I'm not sure which one is better even though I fixed with Arnd's resolution. Arnd, Stephen, thanks :) Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim , Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kgene.kim@samsung.com (Kukjin Kim) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 03:00:09 -0700 Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the s5p tree In-Reply-To: <201203160826.36287.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20120316174546.5121be30a86c2937579bd3f5@canb.auug.org.au> <201203160826.36287.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <4F630F29.6020101@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 03/16/12 01:26, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 16 March 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c between commit 1d7233ac478a ("Merge branch >> 'next/soc-exynos5250-arch-gpio' into for-next") from the s5p tree and >> commit 853a0231e057 ("Merge branch 'samsung/soc' into next/soc2") from >> the arm-soc tree. >> >> These merge commits both looks suspect, but I fixed it up as best I could >> (see below). > Thank you, Stehpen. > Right, both the arm-soc and the s5p tree merge the same commits and > come to different results. Kgene, please have a look and let me know > which of the three solutions is correct. > Yeah, my resolution is missing and both looks OK to me, actually it's just different the position of declaration for 'int ret' and I'm not sure which one is better even though I fixed with Arnd's resolution. Arnd, Stephen, thanks :) Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim , Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.