On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 05:22:25PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:04:31 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:53:19 -0700 Mike Turquette <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Quoting Sören Brinkmann (2013-08-27 08:44:11)
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Stephen's fix is correct. The Zynq patches came in as fixes so I think
> > > this will be a rare event.
> >
> > Can you guys discuss this and come up with a single answer. I read the above as:
> >
> > (for the two places I used CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT where the two
> > branches each added that and CLK_SET_RATE_NOREPARENT respectively)
> >
> > "Stephen was wrong"
> > "Stephen should have taken both"
> > "Stephen was right"
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > I can fix up my merge resolution if you tell me the correct fix. Also,
> > you will need to know so that you can tell Linus (or whoever else has to
> > resolve these conflicts).
>
> OK, I thought about it some more and the resolution now looks like
> below. Is this correct/better?
Yes, looks correct to me.
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
