From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the arm tree Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:16:58 +0100 Message-ID: <20111024211658.GD32545@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20111025072013.1824cfd24495819777ad2660@canb.auug.org.au> <20111024203041.GA32545@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20111024210952.GQ23421@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:48634 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755990Ab1JXVRQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:17:16 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111024210952.GQ23421@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sascha Hauer Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Arnd Bergmann , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nicolas Pitre On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:09:52PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 09:30:41PM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 07:20:13AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi Arnd, > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in > > > arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/memory.h between commit c039bad00f21 > > > ("ARM: plat-mxc: remove mach/memory.h") from the arm tree and commits > > > ae4fa7f66e54 ("ARM i.MX: allow to compile together ARMv4 and ARMv5 based > > > SoCs") and 7409cd1cd554 ("ARM i.MX: allow to compile together all i.MX5 > > > based SoCs") from the arm-soc tree. > > > > > > The former removed the file, so I did that. > > > > Stephen - thanks. > > > > ARM guys, we need to be smarter about this stuff - if we're consolidating > > code across the ARM tree, committing changes to files which we're going > > to remove really isn't a good idea. It probably means something else has > > changed elsewhere to accomodate the deletion of the file, which this > > kind of resolution won't fix up. > > In this case deleting the file is the correct solution. I removed some > definitions of PLAT_PHYS_OFFSET which got unused due to "ARM i.MX: allow > to compile together..." and Nicolas removed the need for PLAT_PHYS_OFFSET > at all. Ok, at least this one is trivial. Thanks for the confirmation. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: