Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:06:25 +1100 | From | Stephen Rothwell <> | Subject | Re: 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] | |