From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mvebu tree with the arm-soc tree Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 16:09:22 +0100 Message-ID: <241533090.9LSHZ5gDBE@wuerfel> References: <20151202111244.b7ee49ee06b4a95e407e740d@kernel.org> <2428665.BrOON4cELy@wuerfel> <87bna92c5b.fsf@free-electrons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:59300 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753447AbbLBPKB (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:10:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87bna92c5b.fsf@free-electrons.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Gregory CLEMENT Cc: Mark Brown , Jason Cooper , andrew@lunn.ch, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 02 December 2015 14:49:52 Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > > > least initially. The conflict will go away once it's tested sufficiently and > > I'm pulling it back. > > By the way, when you will pull our tree, we will still have it our own > mvebu/for-next branch. Will git managed to automagically resolve the > conflict by getting the resolution you will do in your branch? Yes, that should be fine, unless you resolve the same conflict differently. > A another solution could be to have a separate patch for the > arch/arm/Kconfig file that you keep in arm-soc. No, I don't think that will be necessary. Arnd