From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bcm2835 tree with the arm-soc tree Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 14:28:44 +0100 Message-ID: <3348703.0b5FTH9Sa3@wuerfel> References: <20141208120619.68287b54@canb.auug.org.au> <2406890.FlzRjyvuXd@wuerfel> <20141208130009.GL3951@x1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.131]:51209 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753135AbaLHN25 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2014 08:28:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20141208130009.GL3951@x1> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Lee Jones Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Stephen Rothwell , Stephen Warren , Olof Johansson , Matthias Klein , Hauke Mehrtens , =?utf-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Monday 08 December 2014 13:00:09 Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 08 Dec 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Monday 08 December 2014 12:06:19 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi Stephen, > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the bcm2835 tree got a conflict in > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile between commit 302a5ef29d49 ("ARM: BCM5301X: > > > Add DT for Netgear R6300 V2") from the arm-soc tree and commit > > > 6298ed17a404 ("ARM: bcm2835: Add device tree for Raspberry Pi model > > > B+") from the bcm2835 tree. > > > > > > I fixed it up (the bcm2835 tree patch is also in the arm-soc tree as > > > commit ba2a1d6959ac ("ARM: bcm2835: Add device tree for Raspberry Pi > > > model B+"), so I just used the arm-soc version) and can carry the fix > > > as necessary (no action is required). > > > > Thanks a lot for the notification! > > > > Lee, do you know what is going on? Did you accidentally rebase a commit > > that you already sent for inclusion in arm-soc? > > Nope. The branch hasn't changed at all. > > OOI why would a re-base affect anything? I sent you it in patch form. Ah, I looked at the wrong branch and didn't see that I applied a patch instead of a pull request. It's all fine then, as long as you never intend to send any pull requests based on top of your current branch. You can possibly make Stephen's life a tiny bit simpler if you just drop all patches from your for-next branch as soon as we've picked them up into arm-soc. Arnd