On 29/08/2013 16:23, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:06:32PM +0200, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Hi Felipe
On 27/08/2013 21:56, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:30:21PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:37:32PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Tue,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:06:32PM +0200, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> Hi Felipe
>
> On 27/08/2013 21:56, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:30:21PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >>On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:37:32PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> >>>On Tue, Aug 27, 2013
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> Hi Felipe
>
>
> On 27/08/2013 21:56, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:30:21PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:37:32PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 27,
Hi Felipe
On 27/08/2013 21:56, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:30:21PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:37:32PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:37:32AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 04:13:23PM +0200, Sebastian Andr
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:45:06PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got conflicts in
> arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-bone.dts, arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-evm.dts and
> arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-evmsk.dts between commit c031a7d41934 ("usb:
> usb: dsp
Hi Olof,
On 27/08/2013 18:12, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 05:25:23PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 08/27/2013 05:01 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
What do we do now?
Cannot you just merge the stable arm-soc/dt branch into your branch
before applying your patches?
Un
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got conflicts in
arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-bone.dts, arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-evm.dts and
arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-evmsk.dts between commit c031a7d41934 ("usb:
usb: dsps: update code according to the binding document") from the usb
tree and commi
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:30:21PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:37:32PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:37:32AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 04:13:23PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > > On 08/27/2
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:37:32PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:37:32AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 04:13:23PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > On 08/27/2013 04:05 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> > > > On 27/08/2013 16:02, Sebastian
On 08/27/2013 07:37 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> Nor will you, given that I am not the one to take these patches, Felipe
> is. I noticed now that you said "please route around Felipe", but
> sorry, no, I'm not going to do that unless there's a really good reason.
> Felipe seems to be around at the moment,
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:37:32AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 04:13:23PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 08/27/2013 04:05 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> > > On 27/08/2013 16:02, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > >> On 08/27/2013 03:57 PM, Benoit Cousson wrot
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 04:13:23PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 08/27/2013 04:05 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> > On 27/08/2013 16:02, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >> On 08/27/2013 03:57 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> >>> + Kevin,
> >>>
> >>> On 27/08/2013 15:53, Sebastian Andrzej S
On 08/27/2013 06:12 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> No. Read that email again. What Benoit said was that if Felipe was fine
> with the change _HE_ would take it. Huge difference, and one that would have
> avoided this situation.
Yes, I'm sorry.
> The only way to solve these things in the future is to
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior writes:
> On 08/27/2013 05:01 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
What do we do now?
>>>
>>> Cannot you just merge the stable arm-soc/dt branch into your branch
>>> before applying your patches?
>>
>> Unfortunately, the next/dt branch of arm-soc is not necessarily stable
>> so
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 05:25:23PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 08/27/2013 05:01 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >>> What do we do now?
> >>
> >> Cannot you just merge the stable arm-soc/dt branch into your branch
> >> before applying your patches?
> >
> > Unfortunately, the next/dt bran
On 08/27/2013 05:01 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> What do we do now?
>>
>> Cannot you just merge the stable arm-soc/dt branch into your branch
>> before applying your patches?
>
> Unfortunately, the next/dt branch of arm-soc is not necessarily stable
> so should *not* be merged. In fact none of the
Benoit Cousson writes:
> + Kevin,
>
> On 27/08/2013 15:53, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> On 08/27/2013 03:24 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
>>> Hi Sebatian,
>>
>> Hi Benoit,
>>
>>> Yes. DT patches are an endless source of merge conflicts if they are
>>> merge throught different trees.
>>
>> Usua
On 08/27/2013 04:05 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> On 27/08/2013 16:02, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> On 08/27/2013 03:57 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
>>> + Kevin,
>>>
>>> On 27/08/2013 15:53, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
What do we do now?
>>>
>>> Cannot you just merge the stable arm-soc/
On 27/08/2013 16:02, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 08/27/2013 03:57 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
+ Kevin,
On 27/08/2013 15:53, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
What do we do now?
Cannot you just merge the stable arm-soc/dt branch into your branch
before applying your patches?
That is up
On 08/27/2013 03:57 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> + Kevin,
>
> On 27/08/2013 15:53, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> What do we do now?
>
> Cannot you just merge the stable arm-soc/dt branch into your branch
> before applying your patches?
That is up to Greg. This changes sat in his usb-next tr
+ Kevin,
On 27/08/2013 15:53, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 08/27/2013 03:24 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Hi Sebatian,
Hi Benoit,
Yes. DT patches are an endless source of merge conflicts if they are
merge throught different trees.
Usually there are small conflicts because two people ad
On 08/27/2013 03:24 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> Hi Sebatian,
Hi Benoit,
> Yes. DT patches are an endless source of merge conflicts if they are
> merge throught different trees.
Usually there are small conflicts because two people added / changed a
node nearby. This patch turned the .dts file alm
Hi Sebatian,
On 27/08/2013 15:02, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
[cc'ing Benoit Cousson (OMAP DT maintainer)]
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
wrote:
On 08/27/2013 10:13 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
ar
[cc'ing Benoit Cousson (OMAP DT maintainer)]
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
wrote:
> On 08/27/2013 10:13 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-bone.dts between commit 97238b35d5bb
>>
On 08/27/2013 10:13 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-bone.dts between commit 97238b35d5bb
> ("usb: musb: dsps: use proper child nodes") from the tree and
> commit 63f6b2550aa0 ("ARM: dts: AM33XX: don't redefin
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi between commit 22a5aa170c52 ("usb: dwc3:
core: switch to snps,dwc3") from the usb tree and commit ec0a71838da2
("ARM: OMAP5: dts: fix reg property size") from the arm-soc tree.
I fixed it up (see b
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-evmsk.dts between commit 97238b35d5bb ("usb:
musb: dsps: use proper child nodes") from the usb tree and commit
63f6b2550aa0 ("ARM: dts: AM33XX: don't redefine OCP bus and device
nodes") from the arm-soc
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-evm.dts between commits 97238b35d5bb ("usb:
musb: dsps: use proper child nodes") and 9b3452d1fa3c ("usb: musb dma:
add cppi41 dma driver") from the usb tree and commit 63f6b2550aa0 ("ARM:
dts: AM33XX: d
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-bone.dts between commit 97238b35d5bb ("usb:
musb: dsps: use proper child nodes") from the tree and commit
63f6b2550aa0 ("ARM: dts: AM33XX: don't redefine OCP bus and device
nodes") from the arm-soc tre
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 04:12:39PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> drivers/usb/phy/phy-rcar-usb.c between commit 56a9a6de2a87 ("usb: phy:
> rcar-usb: Fix comment w.r.t. devm_ioremap_resource") from the usb tree
> and com
Hello.
On 18-06-2013 10:12, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
drivers/usb/phy/phy-rcar-usb.c between commit 56a9a6de2a87 ("usb: phy:
rcar-usb: Fix comment w.r.t. devm_ioremap_resource") from the usb tree
and commit 725bf9dcafe1 ("phy-rcar-usb
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
drivers/usb/phy/phy-rcar-usb.c between commit 56a9a6de2a87 ("usb: phy:
rcar-usb: Fix comment w.r.t. devm_ioremap_resource") from the usb tree
and commit 725bf9dcafe1 ("phy-rcar-usb: correct base address") from the
arm-soc tree.
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-zoom-peripherals.c between commit 51482be9dcfd
("ARM: OMAP: USB: Add phy binding information") from the usb tree and
commit c5913935657f ("ARM: OMAP: zoom: Audio support via the common
omap-twl4030 mac
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-zoom-peripherals.c between commit 51482be9dcfd ("ARM:
OMAP: USB: Add phy binding information") from the usb tree and commit
c5913935657f ("ARM: OMAP: zoom: Audio support via the common omap-twl4030
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-3430sdp.c between commit 51482be9dcfd ("ARM:
OMAP: USB: Add phy binding information") from the usb tree and commit
77f86144984e ("ARM: OMAP: sdp3430: Audio support via the common
omap-twl4030 machine d
On Tuesday 27 November 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> @@@ -167,7 -184,9 +170,9 @@@ ehci_orion_conf_mbus_windows(struct usb
> }
> }
>
> + static u64 ehci_orion_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);
> +
> -static int __devinit ehci_orion_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +static int e
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
drivers/usb/host/ehci-orion.c between commit 41ac7b3ab7fe ("usb: remove use of
__devinit") from the usb tree and commit 77dae54ab385 ("ARM: Kirkwood:
ehci-orion: Add device tree binding") from the arm-soc tree.
I fixed it u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/13/2012 05:20 AM, Stephen Rothwell :
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/configs/stamp9g20_defconfig between commit 77614e025061
> ("arch: Change defconfigs to point to g_mass_storage") from th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/13/2012 05:06 AM, Stephen Rothwell :
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/configs/afeb9260_defconfig between commit 77614e025061 ("arch:
> Change defconfigs to point to g_mass_storage") from the
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/configs/stamp9g20_defconfig between commit 77614e025061 ("arch: Change
defconfigs to point to g_mass_storage") from the usb tree and commit
2484575268e2 ("arm: at91: drop machine defconfig") from the arm-soc tree.
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/configs/afeb9260_defconfig between commit 77614e025061 ("arch:
Change defconfigs to point to g_mass_storage") from the usb tree and
commit 2484575268e2 ("arm: at91: drop machine defconfig") from the
arm-soc tree.
The
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 16:56 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got conflicts in
> arch/arm/mach-vt8500/bv07.c, arch/arm/mach-vt8500/devices-vt8500.c,
> arch/arm/mach-vt8500/devices-wm8505.c, arch/arm/mach-vt8500/devices.c,
> arch/arm/mach-vt85
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got conflicts in
arch/arm/mach-vt8500/bv07.c, arch/arm/mach-vt8500/devices-vt8500.c,
arch/arm/mach-vt8500/devices-wm8505.c, arch/arm/mach-vt8500/devices.c,
arch/arm/mach-vt8500/devices.h and arch/arm/mach-vt8500/wm8505_7in.c
between commit 100d4
On 09/06/2012 07:42 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> drivers/usb/host/Kconfig between commit 952230d774bb ("usb: ohci:
> Fix Kconfig dependency on USB_ISP1301") from the usb tree and
> commit d684f05f2d55 ("ARM: mach-pnx4008: Remove arc
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
drivers/usb/host/Kconfig between commit 952230d774bb ("usb: ohci: Fix
Kconfig dependency on USB_ISP1301") from the usb tree and commit
d684f05f2d55 ("ARM: mach-pnx4008: Remove architecture") from the arm-soc
tree.
I fixed it u
45 matches
Mail list logo
