From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38F9D2C0084 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 10:13:28 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <1383347586.4776.0.camel@pasglop> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the dt-rh tree with the powerpc tree From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Rob Herring Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 10:13:06 +1100 In-Reply-To: <52742A2A.9080008@gmail.com> References: <20131101162002.4dd386299ec42e8d8d032be2@canb.auug.org.au> <52742A2A.9080008@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 17:24 -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On 11/01/2013 12:20 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the dt-rh tree got a conflict in > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/prom.h between commit a3e31b458844 ("of: > > Move definition of of_find_next_cache_node into common code") from > > the powerpc tree and commit 0c3f061c195c ("of: implement > > of_node_to_nid as a weak function") from the dt-rh tree. > > Ben, I can pick these 2 patches up instead if you want to drop them > and avoid the conflict. I'd rather not rebase my tree, the conflict seems to be rather trivial to solve. Cheers, Ben.