From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756369AbaAJArb (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jan 2014 19:47:31 -0500 Received: from kirsty.vergenet.net ([202.4.237.240]:59229 "EHLO kirsty.vergenet.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753158AbaAJAr1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jan 2014 19:47:27 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:47:24 +0900 From: Simon Horman To: Olof Johansson Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Paul Mundt , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Bastian Hecht , Laurent Pinchart Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sh tree with the tree Message-ID: <20140110004724.GA22965@verge.net.au> References: <20140106121317.bada4233ec3fec40f79735cc@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organisation: Horms Solutions Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 11:11:03PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the sh tree got conflicts in > > drivers/tty/serial/sh-sci.c and include/linux/serial_sci.h between > > commits 8fb9631c517b ("serial: sh-sci: Sort headers alphabetically"), > > 20bdcab8268c ("serial: sh-sci: Add OF support") and probably others from > > the arm-soc tree and commits ada80ee7fa60 ("serial: sh-sci: Add OF > > support") and b19ef75c56e9 ("serial: sh-sci: OF definitions need > > linux/of.h") from the sh tree. > > > > The arm-soc tree version is dated much more recently than > > the sh tree version and conflicts badly, so for today I have just dropped > > the sh tree (everything in there was committed before April 2013). Please > > figure this out. > > The request to merge the sh code came through Simon with claimed > agreement from SH maintainers to do so -- I didn't verify this since > they have in the past been well-coordinated. Simon? I spoke with Paul recently and my understanding is that he hasn't been actively working in this area for over a year now. I guess there are some stale patches in his tree.