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
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,
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
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
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Benoit Cousson bcous...@baylibre.com 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 at
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 at 10:37:32AM -0700,
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
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:
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?
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?
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: dsps:
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
>>
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
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
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.
>>
>>
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
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
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
+ 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
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
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
[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
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 redefine OCP
[cc'ing Benoit Cousson (OMAP DT maintainer)]
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
bige...@linutronix.de 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
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
bige...@linutronix.de wrote:
On 08/27/2013 10:13 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc
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
+ 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
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 tree for
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
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/dt branch into your
Benoit Cousson bcous...@baylibre.com 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.
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 arm-soc
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 branch of arm-soc is
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior bige...@linutronix.de 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
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
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 Siewior 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 Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 08/27/2013 03:57 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
+
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,
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 Andrzej
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 08/27/2013 04:05 PM,
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
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
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:
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 commit
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
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
-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
-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
-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 usb
-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 the usb
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,
>
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,
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
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
62 matches
Mail list logo
