On 24 November 2011 23:54, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thursday 24 November 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Arnd,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
>> arch/arm/tools/mach-types between commit bb9b25f923fc ("ARM: Update
>> mach-types") from the arm tree and commit 9b7c547f7747 ("ARM: Update
>> mach-types to fix mxs build breakage") from the arm-soc tree.
>>
>> The arm tree version is a superset of the arm-soc version, so I used that.
>
> Thanks for catching this!
>
> Shawn, please make sure that any updates to mach-types go only through
> Russell's tree. Unfortunately I did not realize that this was out of
> scope when I merged it, otherwise I would have complained yesterday.
>
Sorry if I have misunderstood Russell's comment below.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/139196/focus=140505
But I thought he would not send patch on mach-types for -rc series.
That's why I came up with this patch and sent it to you. After all,
we do not want to see mxs build breakage in a release.
> Russell, is it ok for you if the patch (see below for reference)
> goes into 3.2-rc4 through the arm-soc tree? I can remove if if you
> think that's better, but I have a lot of fixes stacked on top now
> that I'd prefer not to rebase.
>
--
Regards,
Shawn
--
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
