From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the firmware tree Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:24:13 +0100 Message-ID: <1214817853.10393.330.camel@pmac.infradead.org> References: <20080630190907.004cbb79.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:41964 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760532AbYF3JYR (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:24:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080630190907.004cbb79.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Jaswinder Singh , Chas Williams , David Miller On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 19:09 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi David, > > Today's linux-next merge of the firmware tree got a major conflict > between commit e92481f95375aa2702ea5018b0295792ae0fa9c1 ("atm: [fore200e] > convert to use request_firmware()") from the net tree and commit > ef15231d8a30e501b5471ad97a07359e39ceab00 ("fore200e: use request_firmware > ()") from the firmware tree. > > I reverted the latter from the firmware tree for now. Oops, sorry -- I'd forgotten about that patch, and I let Jaswinder go ahead and do it again. I think the reason I didn't apply the patch from Chas to my tree was because I'm trying to be very careful to preserve functionality -- when I ask Linus to pull the firmware tree, I still want people to be able to build in _all_ the firmware they could before. I'm happy enough to see it done separately though; I'll drop our fore200e patch from the firmware-2.6.git tree. -- dwmw2