vexpress issues in next-20121029
Arnd Bergmann
arnd at arndb.de
Mon Nov 5 12:52:07 EST 2012
On Monday 05 November 2012, Pawel Moll wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 16:47 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > I've just tried pulling in your branch again, but it appears unchanged:
> > The patches are still based on 807e45b328, which is a different commit
> > from bcd6f569e874 that is in Mike's tree. Please do as I asked you before
> > and rebase on top of the commit that you sent him,
>
> Ok, I think I got the idea now. Sorry about not catching up straight
> away...
>
> The following changes since commit bcd6f569e87471d7f104bd9497f0b516a3b12e32:
>
> clk: Common clocks implementation for Versatile Express (2012-10-29 11:08:03 -0700)
>
> are available in the git repository at:
>
> git://git.linaro.org/people/pawelmoll/linux.git vexpress-clk-soc
>
> for you to fetch changes up to 433683a66401adb0150792e725cc4f631c94de46:
Ok, thanks!
I've put it into the next/soc2 branch now, separate from the earlier next/soc
branch, since we now have a dependency on another branch.
> ARM: vexpress: Remove motherboard dependencies in the DTS files (2012-11-05 17:09:52 +0000)
>
> > and make sure that this is a commit that Mike never rebases.
>
> Uh. Mike, is your clk-next subject to rebases?
On a related note, there are other patches below this one now:
clk: Common clocks implementation for Versatile Express
clk: Versatile Express clock generators ("osc") driver
CLK: clk-twl6040: Initial clock driver for OMAP4+ McPDM fclk clock
clk: fix return value check in sirfsoc_of_clk_init()
clk: fix return value check in of_fixed_clk_setup()
clk: ux500: Update sdmmc clock to 100MHz for u8500
clk: ux500: Support prcmu ape opp voltage clock
mfd: dbx500: Export prmcu_request_ape_opp_100_voltage
clk: Don't return negative numbers for unsigned values with !clk
clk: Fix documentation typos
clk: Document .is_enabled op
clk: SPEAr: Vco-pll: Fix compilation warning
Mike, do you prefer us to wait for those to make it into v3.8-rc1 before
pushing the patches from Pawel, or can we just send the entire branch
along with the other changes?
FWIW, there is a way to avoid dependencies like this if the patches that
are required in two branches are based directly on an -rc release and
then merged into the two maintainer trees, rather than having one maintainer
tree pull in (part of) the history of another one.
Arnd
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list