On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:09:52AM +0100, James Hogan wrote:
> On 27/08/13 10:03, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the clk tree got a conflict in
> > drivers/clk/zynq/clkc.c between commits 252957cc3a2d ("clk/zynq/clkc: Add
> > dedicated spinlock for the SWDT") and 765b7d4c4cb3
> > ("clk/zynq/clkc: Add CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT flag to ethernet muxes") from
> > Linus' tree and commit 819c1de344c5 ("clk: add CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT
> > flag") from the clk tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (see below and in a couple of places I chose
> > CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT over CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, which may, of course,
> > be wrong) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
>
> The case you mentioned looks correct to me.
>
> I can't see todays -next yet, but if by "choose CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT
> over CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT" you mean one branch adds CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
> clk-next adds CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT, and the resolution ends up with
> only CLK_SET_RATE_NOREPARENT then that sounds wrong, as the two flags
> are orthogonal.
I can just agree, the case included in the mail looks correct, but in
case of other conflicts both flags should be set. Just like in the case
shown here.
Sören
--
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
