On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 13:14 +0100, ext Liam Girdwood wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:48 +0000, Liam Girdwood wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 13:38 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Liam,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the voltage tree got a conflict in
> > > drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c between commit
> > > 441a450554dada1c59fc06fdf068cb0eeba53c6d ("regulator: Add support for
> > > twl6030 regulators") from Linus' tree and commits
> > > 6360cf42ae51be5f6e6e72d6e81f202d9db0f7e9 ("twl4030-regulator: Remove
> > > regulator from all groups when disabling") and
> > > 3277b9fce0fcaa68d5947429e062163852ebc6fb ("twl4030-regulator: Add all TWL
> > > regulators to twreg_info") from the voltage tree.
> > >
> > > I cannot begin to fix this mess up. I do wonder why the regulator patch
> > > above was never in linux-next before being sent upstream yesterday
> > > (Samuel?). All I can do is use the version of the voltage tree from
> > > next-20091120 (commit id b0a7a2ad0aebb35934de6d2509c73fe93a362c0e) for
> > > today and hope that Liam can do the merge with Linus' tree.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry about this. There were some large patch sets that did span both
> > mfd and regulator recently.
> >
> > I'll fix and do my pull request today.
>
> Peter, Juha,
>
> I've fixed up regulator for-next against upstream and now get a build
> failure on twl-regulator.c (possibly related to mfd/twl-codec.c build
> failure today ?)
> Can you check this and send me patch before I issue a pull request.
> Fwiw, the regulator pull request is now blocking on this issue.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Liam
Hi Liam
I should be able to fix at the very least most of those during tomorrow,
it appears that some changes with the 6030 additions confused the
patches I sent to you earlier. I'll send you a patch tomorrows
Best regards,
Juha K-S
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
