From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the arm tree Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:53:23 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20170118094929.7d79bb55@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170118094929.7d79bb55@canb.auug.org.au> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Stephen Rothwell , Olof Johansson , Arnd Bergmann , ARM , Russell King Cc: Linus Walleij , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On 01/17/2017 02:49 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in: > > arch/arm/mach-ux500/platsmp.c > > between commit: > > 6996cbb23721 ("ARM: 8641/1: treewide: Replace uses of virt_to_phys with __pa_symbol") > > from the arm tree and commit: > > 9e634cae7256 ("ARM: ux500: simplify secondary boot") > > from the arm-soc tree. > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree > is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly > complex conflicts. Your resolution looks correct, thanks Stephen! -- Florian