On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Deepak Saxena wrote:
> On 21 July 2011 16:47, john stultz <johns...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 16:34 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 15:18 -0700, Deepak Saxena wrote:
> >> > On 21 July 2011 15:08, john stultz <johns...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 22:57 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >> > >> Please let me know if you want to see something merged into the
> >> > >> linaro-3.0 tree before Thursday.
> >> > >
> >> > > So I'm working on merging this into the Android tree and something in
> >> > > your tree is causing Pandaboard to hang very early at boot:
> >> > >
> >> > > Starting kernel ...
> >> > >
> >> > > Uncompressing Linux... done, booting the kernel.
> >> > >
> >> > > ... And that's all.
> >> > >
> >> > > I rolled back to just your tree and got the same thing (the vanilla
> >> > > Android 3.0 branch still works fine).
> > [snip]
> >> Bisecting narrowed it down to:
> >> af496a67c101b2161a12c1bc70626f6a479501bb
> >>
> >> Arnd: Maybe something went badly with the merge collision resolution
> >> there?
> >
> > And frustratingly, since its a merge commit, I can't just revert that
> > one commit.
> >
> > Is anyone else testing Nico's tree (or even the ARM-SOC tree) with
> > PandaBoard?
>
> According to the following from today, the merge should not have
> happened in the first place. Nico, do you need to rebase/merge with
> latest arm-soc/for-next tree?
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2011-July/058255.html
OK, my fault, I missed that. Obviously I should not have taken that
merge given its uncertainty. So I reverted it.
[...]
And... the latest arm-soc/for-next branch is giving me yet more
conflicts in the imx and omap code. I'm not in a position to resolve
those this close to the freeze deadline. Too bad: I'm not merging it at
all.
Nicolas
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
