From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kukjin Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: fix bad merge of display timing node to exynos5250-smdk5250.dts Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 03:29:16 +0900 Message-ID: <51630C7C.9040003@gmail.com> References: <1365439879-3398-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> <51630B26.1000102@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com ([209.85.223.171]:42695 "EHLO mail-ie0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935106Ab3DHS3X (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:29:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Anderson Cc: Kukjin Kim , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , Leela Krishna Amudala , Jingoo Han , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Abraham , Olof Johansson , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Rahul Sharma On 04/09/13 03:25, Doug Anderson wrote: > Kukjin, > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote: >> Thanks for your pointing out. But it should be fixed with re-sorting out the >> branch. > > No problem with however you want to solve it. ;) Seemed that the > patch was the easiest way to report the problem in any case... > Makes sense :-) BTW, if any problems on current for-next, please kindly let me know. Thanks. - Kukjin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kgene.kim@gmail.com (Kukjin Kim) Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 03:29:16 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: dts: fix bad merge of display timing node to exynos5250-smdk5250.dts In-Reply-To: References: <1365439879-3398-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> <51630B26.1000102@samsung.com> Message-ID: <51630C7C.9040003@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 04/09/13 03:25, Doug Anderson wrote: > Kukjin, > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote: >> Thanks for your pointing out. But it should be fixed with re-sorting out the >> branch. > > No problem with however you want to solve it. ;) Seemed that the > patch was the easiest way to report the problem in any case... > Makes sense :-) BTW, if any problems on current for-next, please kindly let me know. Thanks. - Kukjin