From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: "Russell King" <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
"Eric Bénard" <eric@eukrea.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with the arm-current tree
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:35:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101012103505.GD28242@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101012103314.41b00cbe.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:33:14AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c between commit
> 4793ca4028e4dcdbf2740db50995c9378ded3cf8 ("cpuimx27: fix i2c bus
> selection") from the arm-current tree and commit
> 77a406da5a5b76445a816d5f043fc9aef4026ff1 ("ARM: imx: fix name of macros
> to add imx-i2c devices") from the arm tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) can can carry the fix for a while.
This is because the imx-for-next branch still contained a patch which
I was hoping to get into 2.6.36. This patch conflicts with another patch
in the 2.6.37 branch (I resolved this manually in my next branch).
As all patches for next are now in Russells branch I just scrubbed
my for-next branch and this merge conflict should be gone now.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-12 10:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-11 23:33 linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with the arm-current tree Stephen Rothwell
2010-10-12 8:03 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-10-12 8:28 ` Russell King
2010-10-12 9:23 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-10-12 9:42 ` Russell King
2010-10-12 10:02 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-10-12 10:35 ` Sascha Hauer [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-12-14 23:54 Stephen Rothwell
2010-12-14 23:57 ` Russell King
2010-12-15 12:28 ` Dave Martin
2010-12-15 16:43 ` Russell King
2010-12-05 23:58 Stephen Rothwell
2010-10-11 1:24 Stephen Rothwell
2010-10-11 7:48 ` Anders Larsen
2010-09-27 4:21 Stephen Rothwell
2010-07-26 1:13 Stephen Rothwell
2010-02-02 0:07 Stephen Rothwell
2010-01-17 23:35 Stephen Rothwell
2010-01-18 1:33 ` Ben Dooks
2010-01-18 3:34 ` Stephen Rothwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20101012103505.GD28242@pengutronix.de \
--to=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
--cc=eric@eukrea.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rmk@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox