From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the libata tree with the at91 tree Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 00:05:50 +0200 Message-ID: <4EA9D5BE.6020508@mvista.com> References: <20111025083819.0940cc9ecefac0d5390a23eb@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:51526 "EHLO mail-ww0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755136Ab1J0WGS (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:06:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20111025083819.0940cc9ecefac0d5390a23eb@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Jeff Garzik , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sergei Shtylyov , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Hello. On 24.10.2011 23:38, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the libata tree got a conflict in > drivers/ata/pata_at91.c between commit 9585cf300d98 ("ARM: at91/pata: use > gpio_is_valid to check the gpio") from the at91 tree and commit > 8e3bfdb95ad7 ("pata_at91: call clk_put() on ata_host_activate() failure") > from the libata tree. I knew about this conflict and have informed Jean-Cristophe on LAKML. I don't know why libata driver changes went in via the at91 tree... > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. Thanks. MBR, Sergei