From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Turquette Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the clk tree with Linus' tree Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:53:19 -0700 Message-ID: <20130827165319.8231.9@quantum> References: <20130827190304.c3f2f891f20d078d66b703b1@canb.auug.org.au> <521C7AF0.1020903@imgtec.com> <20f57100-4440-4353-9c84-6e5781f7c6d3@DB9EHSMHS025.ehs.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.220.42]:57301 "EHLO mail-pa0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753205Ab3H0QxZ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 12:53:25 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id lj1so5093410pab.29 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:53:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20f57100-4440-4353-9c84-6e5781f7c6d3@DB9EHSMHS025.ehs.local> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: =?utf-8?q?S=C3=B6ren_Brinkmann?= , James Hogan Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Simek Quoting S=C3=B6ren Brinkmann (2013-08-27 08:44:11) > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:09:52AM +0100, James Hogan wrote: > > On 27/08/13 10:03, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi Mike, > > >=20 > > > Today's linux-next merge of the clk tree got a conflict in > > > drivers/clk/zynq/clkc.c between commits 252957cc3a2d ("clk/zynq/c= lkc: Add > > > dedicated spinlock for the SWDT") and 765b7d4c4cb3 > > > ("clk/zynq/clkc: Add CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT flag to ethernet muxes")= from > > > Linus' tree and commit 819c1de344c5 ("clk: add CLK_SET_RATE_NO_RE= PARENT > > > flag") from the clk tree. > > >=20 > > > I fixed it up (see below and in a couple of places I chose > > > CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT over CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, which may, of = course, > > > be wrong) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is requir= ed). > >=20 > > The case you mentioned looks correct to me. > >=20 > > I can't see todays -next yet, but if by "choose CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REP= ARENT > > over CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT" you mean one branch adds CLK_SET_RATE_PAR= ENT, > > clk-next adds CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT, and the resolution ends up = with > > only CLK_SET_RATE_NOREPARENT then that sounds wrong, as the two fla= gs > > are orthogonal. >=20 > I can just agree, the case included in the mail looks correct, but in > case of other conflicts both flags should be set. Just like in the ca= se > shown here. Stephen's fix is correct. The Zynq patches came in as fixes so I think this will be a rare event. Regards, Mike >=20 > S=C3=B6ren