From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for May 2 Date: Fri, 3 May 2019 02:43:44 +0200 Message-ID: <991a8520-5bb9-a4cd-8dc0-38ac2f76571d@linaro.org> References: <20190502201028.707453d8@canb.auug.org.au> <20190502190845.GA19485@archlinux-i9> <0a28f5b8-296a-451c-c2f4-c0057833fb00@linaro.org> <20190503080331.0ccc2419@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190503080331.0ccc2419@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Nathan Chancellor , Anders Roxell , maxime.ripard@bootlin.com, andre.przywara@arm.com, samuel@sholland.org, Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On 03/05/2019 00:03, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Thu, 2 May 2019 22:09:49 +0200 Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> >> Yes, I picked the patch and it was merged it via the tip tree [1] as >> requested by Marc Zyngier [2] and notified [3]. >> >> In any case, this patch should have go through my tree initially, so if >> it is found somewhere else that's wrong. >> >> I did a respin of my branch and pushed it again in case there was >> something wrong from it. > > The patch ("clocksource/drivers/arch_timer: Workaround for Allwinner > A64 timer instability") was merged into v5.1-rc1 via the tip tree as > you say, however the version of your clockevents tree in yesterday's > linux-next was based on v5.0-rc1 and contained the patch again ... > > Today's should be better. Oh, ok. As I updated the branch today before having this merge conflict I thought the problem was coming from somewhere else. Thanks for the update. -- Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog