[GIT PULL] ARM: mvebu: cleanup for v3.11 (round 3 cumulative)

[Jason Cooper]

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:36:05PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> 
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 02:34:22PM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > Olof,
> > 
> > This is the latest for cleanup, and the summary includes everything so
> > far for this window.
> > 
> > 
> > The following changes since commit f722406faae2d073cc1d01063d1123c35425939e:
> > 
> >   Linux 3.10-rc1 (2013-05-11 17:14:08 -0700)
> > 
> > are available in the git repository at:
> > 
> >   git://git.infradead.org/users/jcooper/linux.git tags/cleanup-3.11-3
> > 
> 
> Something odd is going on here.
> 
> > for you to fetch changes up to c589f9b4b51317cfc530812fe90a9895bd51430e:
> > 
> >   arm: mvebu: mark functions of armada-370-xp.c as static (2013-05-21 13:44:32 +0000)
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > mvebu cleanup for v3.11 (round 3)
> > 
> >  - mvebu
> >     - mark functions in armada-370-xp.c as static
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Andrew Lunn (1):
> >       ARM: Orion: Remove redundant init_dma_coherent_pool_size()
> > 
> > Maxime Ripard (1):
> >       ARM: mvebu: Remove init_irq declaration in machine description
> > 
> > Thomas Petazzoni (1):
> >       arm: mvebu: mark functions of armada-370-xp.c as static
> > 
> >  arch/arm/mach-kirkwood/common.c     |  6 ------
> >  arch/arm/mach-mvebu/armada-370-xp.c | 15 +++------------
> >  arch/arm/mach-orion5x/common.c      |  7 -------
> >  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> 
> Two of the above patches are already in mainline, so the diffstat don't match.

Sorry, this was due to my mis-understanding of an off-list comment.  I
mis-read 'send fresh pull requests (paraphrased)' to mean you weren't
pulling my first series of small PRs and I should just do inclusive PRs.

So, the tag annotation was for everything (one patch) since
cleanup-3.11-2, and the PR summary was from v3.10-rc1 so you could see
everything you were pulling in.  I didn't change this tag because,
presumably, you would be getting the previous tags in the pull.

Clearly, I over-thought this.  I'll ask next time a request sounds odd.
:)

thx,

Jason.