From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sameo@linux.intel.com (Samuel Ortiz)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:53:36 +0100
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the mfd tree
In-Reply-To: <511A55DB.7040808@ti.com>
References: <20130211170616.73fd9fd30bb10c27a698ad4d@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20130211185221.GR4801@atomide.com> <511A55DB.7040808@ti.com>
Message-ID: <20130212145336.GI20996@sortiz-mobl>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Roger,

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 04:46:51PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote:
> On 02/11/2013 08:52 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> [130210 22:11]:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/usb-host.c between commit 8a89e93237e1 ("mfd:
> >> omap-usb-host: Consolidate OMAP USB-HS platform data") from the mfd tree
> >> and commit c1d1cd597fc7 ("ARM: OMAP2+: omap_device: remove obsolete
> >> pm_lats and early_device code") from the arm-soc tree.
> >>
> >> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> >> is required).
> > 
> > Thanks again.
> > 
> > Samuel, up to you, but I suggest you just drop these patches for
> > now if still possible unless other patches are based on these.
> > 
> 
> Samuel, please feel free to drop the 20 patches you pulled from me recently.
> 
> I have another set patches that would depend on them and I think it is better if
> both sets go through usb and arm-soc trees. This would avoid some confusion.
> 
> Once you confirm I can add your Acked-by's to them and send fresh pull requests
> to Tony & Greg. Thanks.
I dropped all those patches from my mfd for-next tree now.

Cheers,
Samuel.

-- 
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/