linux-next: please update the i.MX tree

linux-next: please update the i.MX tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Sascha,

It looks like most (if not all) of the i.MX tree has been merged into the
arm-soc (and Linus') tree, so could you please update the i.MX tree to
eliminate the conflicts I am getting.

CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/hardware.h
CONFLICT (modify/delete): arch/arm/mach-mx5/pm-imx5.c deleted in HEAD and modified in i.MX/for-next. Version i.MX/for-next of arch/arm/mach-mx5/pm-imx5.c left in tree.
CONFLICT (modify/delete): arch/arm/mach-mx5/Makefile deleted in HEAD and modified in i.MX/for-next. Version i.MX/for-next of arch/arm/mach-mx5/Makefile left in tree.
CONFLICT (modify/delete): arch/arm/mach-mx5/Kconfig deleted in HEAD and modified in i.MX/for-next. Version i.MX/for-next of arch/arm/mach-mx5/Kconfig left in tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr at canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20120110/4779a8e2/attachment.sig>

linux-next: please update the i.MX tree

[Sascha Hauer]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:52:18AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Sascha,
> 
> It looks like most (if not all) of the i.MX tree has been merged into the
> arm-soc (and Linus') tree, so could you please update the i.MX tree to
> eliminate the conflicts I am getting.

Did this. Sorry, I was not aware that there is something in this branch.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

linux-next: please update the i.MX tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Sascha,

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:30:20 +0100 Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:52:18AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > It looks like most (if not all) of the i.MX tree has been merged into the
> > arm-soc (and Linus') tree, so could you please update the i.MX tree to
> > eliminate the conflicts I am getting.
> 
> Did this. Sorry, I was not aware that there is something in this branch.

Did you push it out? I just checked and it hasn't changed. Just to be
clear, I am fetching git://git.pengutronix.de/git/imx/linux-2.6.git
branch for-next and it hasn't changed since last September.

Should I, instead, just remove that tree from linux-next and let you send
stuff just via the arm-soc (or arm)tree?
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr at canb.auug.org.au
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20120111/1ecdc34a/attachment.sig>

linux-next: please update the i.MX tree

[Sascha Hauer]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 09:34:57AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Sascha,
> 
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:30:20 +0100 Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:52:18AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > 
> > > It looks like most (if not all) of the i.MX tree has been merged into the
> > > arm-soc (and Linus') tree, so could you please update the i.MX tree to
> > > eliminate the conflicts I am getting.
> > 
> > Did this. Sorry, I was not aware that there is something in this branch.
> 
> Did you push it out? I just checked and it hasn't changed. Just to be
> clear, I am fetching git://git.pengutronix.de/git/imx/linux-2.6.git
> branch for-next and it hasn't changed since last September.

I failed to wait until my push returned. It failed due to
non-fast-forward pushing. Really fixed this now.

> 
> Should I, instead, just remove that tree from linux-next and let you send
> stuff just via the arm-soc (or arm)tree?

Yes, that's probably best. That's what I do anyway.

Sascha



-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

linux-next: please update the i.MX tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Sascha,

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:34:29 +0100 Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 09:34:57AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > Should I, instead, just remove that tree from linux-next and let you send
> > stuff just via the arm-soc (or arm)tree?
> 
> Yes, that's probably best. That's what I do anyway.

OK, done.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr at canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20120111/c7944f39/attachment.sig>