lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the cpuidle-cons tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi Rob,

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:03:48 -0500 Rob Lee <rob.lee@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 03/09/2012 08:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell :
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the cpuidle-cons tree got a conflict
> >> in arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c between commit 00482a4078f4 ("ARM:
> >> at91: implement the standby function for pm/cpuidle") from the
> >> arm-soc tree and commit 7a1f6e72dce1 ("ARM: at91: Consolidate time
> >> keeping and irq enable") from the cpuidle-cons tree.
> >>
> >> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as
> >> necessary.
> >
> > Yes: resolution correct. Please carry it.
>
> Who should carry this fixup and related necessary at91 changes? Me?
> FYI, my at91 changes are dependent on my core cpuidle change, but my
> core cpuidle changes do not require any at91 changes as the at91 and
> other platform changes were only made to consolidate duplicate code.

I will carry the fixup and Linus will presumably do the same fix when he
merges these trees in his tree. I am not sure what you mean by "related
at91 changes".

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-13 00:09    [W:0.047 / U:0.952 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site