Hi Artem,
Today's linux-next merge of the l2-mtd tree got a conflict in
drivers/mtd/nand/mxc_nand.c between commit 97c3213fd9fc ("mtd mxc_nand:
prepare/unprepare clock") from Linus' tree and commit 625bdd2a6bd0
("nand: mxc_nand: Use clk_prepare_enable/clk_disable_unprepare") from the
l2-mtd tree.
The former is a superset of the latter.
This tree (l2-mtd) needs to be updated since most of its patches (but not
commits) have been merged into upstream trees. Artem, you and Dave
Woodhouse need to discuss your work flow. (Or I just need to remove the
l2-mtd tree from linux-next.)
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
On Tue, 29 May 2012 12:33:01 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the l2-mtd tree got a conflict in
> drivers/mtd/nand/mxc_nand.c between commit 97c3213fd9fc ("mtd mxc_nand:
> prepare/unprepare clock") from Linus' tree and commit 625bdd2a6bd0
> ("nand: mxc_nand: Use clk_prepare_enable/clk_disable_unprepare") from the
> l2-mtd tree.
>
> The former is a superset of the latter.
Actually they modify different functions, so I fixed it up.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
Hi Artem,
On Tue, 29 May 2012 12:33:01 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This tree (l2-mtd) needs to be updated since most of its patches (but not
> commits) have been merged into upstream trees. Artem, you and Dave
> Woodhouse need to discuss your work flow. (Or I just need to remove the
> l2-mtd tree from linux-next.)
I fact, I screwed up the various merge resolutions that the above mess
caused, so I just dropped the l2-mtd tree for today. Please fix it up.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 12:45 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Artem,
>
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 12:33:01 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > This tree (l2-mtd) needs to be updated since most of its patches (but not
> > commits) have been merged into upstream trees. Artem, you and Dave
> > Woodhouse need to discuss your work flow. (Or I just need to remove the
> > l2-mtd tree from linux-next.)
>
> I fact, I screwed up the various merge resolutions that the above mess
> caused, so I just dropped the l2-mtd tree for today. Please fix it up.
That is generally the intention. As discussed when we added the l2-mtd
tree to linux-next, it is operating as my 'patchwork' with Artem's
initial review. So dropping it when it conflicts with the main tree is
what we would expect.
I actually rounded everything up from Artem's tree 2 weeks ago, and
committed it with minor fixes and one rejected patch. Unfortunately,
when 'git push' told me "Everything up-to-date" it was lying, so that
didn't make it onto the *server* until yesterday when I noticed;
apologies for that.
--
dwmw2
On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 12:45 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Artem,
>
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 12:33:01 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > This tree (l2-mtd) needs to be updated since most of its patches (but not
> > commits) have been merged into upstream trees. Artem, you and Dave
> > Woodhouse need to discuss your work flow. (Or I just need to remove the
> > l2-mtd tree from linux-next.)
>
> I fact, I screwed up the various merge resolutions that the above mess
> caused, so I just dropped the l2-mtd tree for today. Please fix it up.
Yeah, I should have rebased it yesterday against dwmw2's tree. I've just
done this and this should fix the issue. Thanks!
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy