On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 06:29:00AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Thierry Reding
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:39:00PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:30:59PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Thierry Reding
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:39:00PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:30:59PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 09:47:34AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > On Sun, Jul
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:39:00PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:30:59PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 09:47:34AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Stephen Rothwell
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi Th
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:30:59PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 09:47:34AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Stephen Rothwell
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Thierry,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the pwm tree got a conflict in:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 09:47:34AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
> > Hi Thierry,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the pwm tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 8
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pwm tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 830583004e61 ("regulator: pwm: Drop unneeded pwm_enable() call")
> 27bfa8893b15 ("regula
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 12:03:43PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 06:25:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> > conflicts should be m
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 06:25:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for
8 matches
Mail list logo