From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dinh.linux@gmail.com (Dinh Nguyen) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:11:56 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] Fix potential merge conflict for dw_apb_timer_of In-Reply-To: <51BFABE8.5090504@linaro.org> References: <1371514129-22801-1-git-send-email-dinguyen@altera.com> <51BFABE8.5090504@linaro.org> Message-ID: <51BFC1EC.50408@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi John, On 06/17/2013 07:38 PM, John Stultz wrote: > On 06/17/2013 05:08 PM, dinguyen at altera.com wrote: >> From: Dinh Nguyen >> >> Hi Arnd/Olof, >> >> Because of the following patch series that is currently in >> arm-soc/for-next: >> >> 10021488997317d1121505a7ac659124c058efed clocksource: dw_apb_timer_of: >> use clocksource_of_init >> 1b4eca0f634be2a99f2baa6c29dfd183590ead3f clocksource: dw_apb_timer_of: >> select DW_APB_TIMER >> a8b447f2bbbba737ff4478f498d7f83c75a9461b clocksource: dw_apb_timer_of: >> add clock-handling >> a1198f83407ae3421f3f58355a0f296d5ea6249c clocksource: dw_apb_timer_of: >> enable the use the clocksource as sched clock >> >> there will be a merge conflict with: >> >> 55a68c23e0a675b2b8ac2656fd6edbf98b78e4c6 dw_apb_timer_of.c: Remove >> parts that were picoxcell-specific >> >> that is currently in John Stultz's tree fortglx/3.11/time. > > :( That one is also in Thomas' tip/timers/core already. > > >> The following 2 patches will eliminate the need for the patch in John >> Stultz's tree. If there is to be merge of the 2 trees, then the >> patch: >> >> dw_apb_timer_of.c: Remove parts that were picoxcell-specific >> >> can be removed from John's tree to avoid a merge-conflict. >> >> Based on arm-soc/for-next: >> >> PATCH[1/2] - Rename "dw-apb-timer-osc" and "dw-apb-timer-sp" bindings >> to just >> "dw-apb-timer" >> PATCH[2/2] - Fix user/system reporting by fixing read_sched_clock() > > Pavel/Jamie: Can you take a look at these too and make sure these cover > what you were doing. > > > So Dinh, just to get this right, you're wanting me to revert "Remove > parts that were picoxcell-specific" and apply your two changes to my tree? Yes, revert the "Remove parts that were picoxcell-specific". My 2 patches were not based on your tree, so I don't think they can be applied there. It was based on the arm-soc with the 4 patches in it. > > The other 4 patches above are then fine to go in via arm-soc? Or do I > need to merge those in too? The 4 patches are fine in arm-soc. But I'll let Arnd, Olof and yourself decide on what's best. I just know that Pavel's patch will conflict with the 4 that are in arm-soc. Dinh > > thanks > -john >