> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 09:35:28 +0100
> David Jander <david.jander@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:54:36 +1100
>> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Today's linux-next merge of the mfd tree got a conflict in
>> > arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-mx27_3ds.c arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-pcm038.c
>> > arch/arm/mach-mx3/mach-mx31_3ds.c
>> > arch/arm/mach-mx3/mach-mx31moboard.c between commit
>> > 5836372e8a0ba5cc633f61bc0484ee20c86f4b36 ("ARM: imx+mx3: convert to
>> > mc13xxx MFD") from the i.MX tree and commit
>> > e84e545d47d26644275a79fe5ebc1797bcb80910 ("mfd: mfd_cell is now
>> > implicitly available to mc13xxx drivers") from the mfd tree.
>> >
>> > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as
>> > necessary.
>>
>> Your fix seems correct, although I fear I am too dumb to understand
>> why commit e84e545d47d26644275a79fe5ebc1797bcb80910 introduces this
>> extra struct nesting.... AFAICS gcc will end up doing the same as
>> without the extra nest.
>
> It was requested in this thread:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/551441/
Ah, ok. I thought this change was somehow necessary for your patch to
work. I would have expected a separate patch otherwise.
Best regards,
--
David Jander
--
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
