Hi, On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/29/2012 12:57 AM, Olof Johansson : >> Hi, >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux >> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >>> And we're now there. So... >>> >>> Arnd, Olaf, >>> >>> Please incorporate the latest ARM (for-armsoc branch) changes, which can be found at: >>> >>> git://ftp.arm.linux.org.uk/pub/linux/arm/kernel/git-cur/linux-arm.git for-armsoc >>> >>> with SHA1 dcf81c1af839b77b44404453ecae6e5ac5a75f05. >> >> Thanks. I have added this as depends/rmk/for-armsoc in the arm-soc repo. >> >> Any next/ branch we start will have this as the base of said branch, >> so any vendor branches must either already be developed against this >> stable branch, or merge on top of this with minimal conflicts. > > Ok, great. > > I just let you know that there is a conflict between the current Linus' > tree (with recently updated at91 fixes) and this rmk/for-armsoc branch. > > I can give you the resolution of this conflict easily but I would like > to know which way I execute the merge: > > I use this rmk/for-armsoc as a baseline and merge the fixes already in > Linus' tree on top of it or the other way around? > > Maybe it is preferable that I wait for 3.3-rc2 and merge rmk/for-armsoc > on top of it. This result can be the base of our AT91 work for 3.4 > preparation. > > Your thought? I missed replying to this email until now when I started looking at picking up branches for the 3.4 staging, sorry for the delay. Russell, would you prefer merging in v3.3-rc2 into your branch so I can pull the exact same resolution from there, or should we do it locally in arm-soc? It probably makes sense for you to do it so there's no more conflicts from there on out for dependent branches. -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
