On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 14:07 +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 12/09/16 13:59, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 01:30:28PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:44:07PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:36:15PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The changes in arm64's <asm/arch_timer.h> are going to conflict with > > > > > some cleanup [1,2] that just landed in the arm64 for-next/core > > > > > branch. > > > > > > > > > > Could you please rebase atop of that? > > > > Well, we should figure out what tree this is going through first. > > > > There > > > > are a mixture of arm, arm64, driver and dts changes here and not all > > > > of it is carrying the appropriate acks for me to queue it. > > > Given that mix, I had assumed that this would all go through the arm64 > > > tree -- I see that Rob has already acked the binding, and I'm happy to > > > give my ack for the driver once that's in shape. > > Now I see that I'd missed the arch/arm changes in patch 4, which lack a > > relevant ack. > > > > Given that, I don't know what to suggest. > I wouldn't mind delaying patch 4 until it gets acked by RMK, as it > doesn't impact the functionality. Mark asked me to move that patch before the workaround patch, to avoid ever having to add more code that messes with the name. Should I keep the order as is then? -Scott -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
