Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cpuidle-cons tree with thearm-soc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Rob,

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:03:48 -0500 Rob Lee <rob.lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature