Hi Samuel,
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 23:21:37, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 08/05/2012 11:38 PM, AnilKumar, Chimata wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 22:58:01, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> On 07/17/2012 02:48 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 07/16/2012 10:41 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>>
>
On 08/05/2012 11:38 PM, AnilKumar, Chimata wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 22:58:01, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 07/17/2012 02:48 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/16/2012 10:41 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>
Hi all,
Changes since 20120716:
>>>
>>>
>>> on i386:
>>>
>>> drive
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 22:58:01, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 07/17/2012 02:48 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> > On 07/16/2012 10:41 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Changes since 20120716:
> >>
> >
> >
> > on i386:
> >
> > drivers/built-in.o: In function `tps65217_probe':
> > t
On 07/17/2012 02:48 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 07/16/2012 10:41 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Changes since 20120716:
>>
>
>
> on i386:
>
> drivers/built-in.o: In function `tps65217_probe':
> tps65217.c:(.devinit.text+0x13e37): undefined reference to
> `of_regulator_match'
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> For the sake of completeness:
> * Ted explained in his answer in [1].
> * Just FYI: [2] has these changes merged into the original commit.
Yep I read up on it and I'm all fine with it.
Thanks!
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:06:17PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Stephen Rothwell
>> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Changes since 20120716:
>> >
>>
>> Not sure what the root cause of this issue is.
>>
>>
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:06:17PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Changes since 20120716:
> >
>
> Not sure what the root cause of this issue is.
>
> I see the following call-trace in linux-next (next-20120717).
>
> [
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>> ...looks like AB3100 is the *only* driver still using
>>> rand_initialize_irq()...
>>>
>>> drivers/mfd/ab3100-core.c:939: ran
Hi Sedat,
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:27:01 +0200 Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
> Out of curiosity (and normally you are giving a reason why there
> is...) no new Tree for July 18?
Yeah, I will send out a message. Thanks for prompting me.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20120716:
>
Out of curiosity (and normally you are giving a reason why there
is...) no new Tree for July 18?
- Sedat -
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 07/16/2012 10:41 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Changes since 20120716:
>>
>> The vfs tree lost its build failure.
>
>
>
> on i386:
>
> fs/sync.c: In function 'sys_sync':
> fs/sync.c:110:2: error: implicit declaration of fu
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> ...looks like AB3100 is the *only* driver still using
>> rand_initialize_irq()...
>>
>> drivers/mfd/ab3100-core.c:939: rand_initialize_irq(client->irq);
>>
>> ...but why has random.h s
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Stephen Rothwell
>> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Changes since 20120716:
>>>
>>> The vfs tree lost its build failure.
>>>
>>> The l2-mtd tree gained a co
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Changes since 20120716:
>>
>> The vfs tree lost its build failure.
>>
>> The l2-mtd tree gained a conflict against the mtd tree.
>>
>> The battery tree tree lost its
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20120716:
>
> The vfs tree lost its build failure.
>
> The l2-mtd tree gained a conflict against the mtd tree.
>
> The battery tree tree lost its build failure.
>
> The regulator tree gained conflicts against the
Hi all,
Changes since 20120716:
The vfs tree lost its build failure.
The l2-mtd tree gained a conflict against the mtd tree.
The battery tree tree lost its build failure.
The regulator tree gained conflicts against the mfd tree.
The tty tree lost its build failure but gained another, so I use
16 matches
Mail list logo
