Messages in this thread | | | From | Mike Turquette <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the clk tree with Linus' tree | Date | Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:53:19 -0700 |
| |
Quoting Sören Brinkmann (2013-08-27 08:44:11) > 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.
Stephen's fix is correct. The Zynq patches came in as fixes so I think this will be a rare event.
Regards, Mike
> > 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/
| |