From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the i2c tree Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:03:01 +0300 Message-ID: References: <20160715121723.0f21f148@canb.auug.org.au> <2196027.ndrBocBl2R@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160717181448.GC1814@katana> <2565257.LbcJLfl1sl@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160719034806.GA1640@katana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-oi0-f43.google.com ([209.85.218.43]:34639 "EHLO mail-oi0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751248AbcGYMDD (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:03:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160719034806.GA1640@katana> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Wolfram Sang Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Octavian Purdila , Jarkko Nikula , Andy Shevchenko , Mika Westerberg On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> > Well, not knowing much about ACPI, I just need the conflict resolution >> > for my latest i2c/for-next and your above branch. If you want to do it, >> > fine with me. But maybe Jarkko will be back to office on Monday, too. >> >> Unfortunately, I don't see how these branches can be merged in a sensible >> way without adding too much new code into the merge itself. >> >> Something needs to be dropped and then rebased and applied again. > > Okay, I'll drop the I2C parts. Next to the core parts which I will drop, > there was also a driver patch making use of the core changes for which I > requested some updates. Since those did not happen yet (Jarkko on > holiday?), the core patches alone are not important anyhow. Jarkko and Mika are on holidays, I recently noticed this thread, sorry. For now your solution seems okay, since we can't push broken parts into v4.8-rc1. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko