Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753294Ab3H0Po2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:44:28 -0400 Received: from mail-db9lp0251.outbound.messaging.microsoft.com ([213.199.154.251]:42523 "EHLO db9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752192Ab3H0Po1 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:44:27 -0400 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:149.199.60.83;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:NLI;H:xsj-gw1;RD:unknown-60-83.xilinx.com;EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -2 X-BigFish: VPS-2(zzbb2dI98dIc89bh1432Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzzz2fh95h839h93fhd24hf0ah119dh1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h14ddh1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h1b0ah1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h906i1155h192ch) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:44:11 -0700 From: =?utf-8?B?U8O2cmVu?= Brinkmann To: James Hogan CC: Stephen Rothwell , Mike Turquette , , , Michal Simek Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the clk tree with Linus' tree References: <20130827190304.c3f2f891f20d078d66b703b1@canb.auug.org.au> <521C7AF0.1020903@imgtec.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <521C7AF0.1020903@imgtec.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-RCIS-Action: ALLOW Message-ID: <20f57100-4440-4353-9c84-6e5781f7c6d3@DB9EHSMHS025.ehs.local> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-OriginatorOrg: xilinx.com X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1496 Lines: 35 On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:09:52AM +0100, James Hogan wrote: > On 27/08/13 10:03, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the clk tree got a conflict in > > drivers/clk/zynq/clkc.c between commits 252957cc3a2d ("clk/zynq/clkc: Add > > dedicated spinlock for the SWDT") and 765b7d4c4cb3 > > ("clk/zynq/clkc: Add CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT flag to ethernet muxes") from > > Linus' tree and commit 819c1de344c5 ("clk: add CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT > > flag") from the clk tree. > > > > I fixed it up (see below and in a couple of places I chose > > CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT over CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, which may, of course, > > be wrong) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). > > The case you mentioned looks correct to me. > > I can't see todays -next yet, but if by "choose CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT > over CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT" you mean one branch adds CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, > clk-next adds CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT, and the resolution ends up with > only CLK_SET_RATE_NOREPARENT then that sounds wrong, as the two flags > are orthogonal. I can just agree, the case included in the mail looks correct, but in case of other conflicts both flags should be set. Just like in the case shown here. Sören -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/