On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 09:38:01AM +0200, Baruch Siach wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 04:25:57PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 09:18:21AM +0200, Baruch Siach wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 03:40:56PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 09:28:38PM +0200, Baruch Siach wrote: > > > > > Since 93abe8e4 (clk: add non CONFIG_HAVE_CLK routines) code using clk.h > > > > > like this driver needs not depend on HAVE_CLK. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <baruch@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Thanks. This patch conflicts with another sh_sci patch you have just posted > > > (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.serial/13640). How would you like this > > > to be handled? > > > > Indeed it does, sorry for not noticing that. > > > > Perhaps it would be best to drop the patch that I posted? > > Why drop? There is no logical conflict between the patches, only textual. So > we just need to serialize them to solve the conflict, and have them go via the > same tree. Ok. Could you rebase and repost your patch on top of the patches that I posted earlier. The reason that I suggest this is that the patches I posted have been around publicly for some time, albeit not merged by Greg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
