From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:58:49 +0000
Subject: -next fails to boot as of today on S3C6410
In-Reply-To: <20111122222135.GB7845@gallagher>
References: <20111122192741.GG30583@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
 <20111122193124.GB9581@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <20111122193957.GH30583@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
 <20111122222135.GB7845@gallagher>
Message-ID: <20111122225847.GA3005@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:21:35PM +0000, Jamie Iles wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 07:39:57PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Thanks.  Note that I'm not 100% sure I believe the bisection result as
> > reverting didn't fix the issue and I've stared at the code a bit without
> > seeing anything that set off alarm bells.

> No, you're right - this is the offending commit.  It actually needs 
> this[1] fix and things should be okay.

> Thomas, Rob, would one of you be able to apply this please?  I'm not 
> sure if this would normally go through Grant or not.

Gah, right.  I'll give this a test tomorrow.

You *really* should point out dependencies like this when sending
patches so we can avoid this sort of bisection breakage when posting
things so that whoever's applying the patches can avoid introducing this
sort of breakage and so that we don't have people like me sitting trying
to work out if they did something thick.