[GIT PULL]]ARM: sirf: machine update for 3.16

[Barry Song]

2014-05-27 7:53 GMT+08:00 Barry Song <21cnbao at gmail.com>:
> 2014-05-27 6:05 GMT+08:00 Olof Johansson <olof at lixom.net>:
>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 08:28:24PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>>> 2014-05-22 4:51 GMT+08:00 Olof Johansson <olof at lixom.net>:
>>> > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 01:39:20PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>>> >> 2014-05-20 13:07 GMT+08:00 Olof Johansson <olof at lixom.net>:
>>> >> > On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 08:07:14PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>>> >> >> >> Bin Shi (2):
>>> >> >> >>       clocksource: prima2: fix some minor checkpatch issues
>>> >> >> >>       irqchip: sirf: fix one minor checkpatch issue
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Xianglong Du (1):
>>> >> >> >>       ARM: prima2: rstc: fix some minor checkpatch issues
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Zhiwu Song (2):
>>> >> >> >>       clocksource:sirf: remove the hardcode for the clk of timers
>>> >> >> >>       clocksource: marco: fix the affinity set for local timer of CPU1
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > as Daniel has applied this one "clocksource: marco: fix the affinity
>>> >> >> > set for local timer of CPU1" to his clk tree, i'll rebuilt the tag by
>>> >> >> > dropping this.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> hi Olof,
>>> >> >> i did a force update to tags/sirf-soc-for-3.16 after dropping
>>> >> >> "clocksource: marco: fix the affinity set for local timer of CPU1"
>>> >> >> which has been in clk tree , the new request is as below:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The following changes since commit d1db0eea852497762cab43b905b879dfcd3b8987:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>   Linux 3.15-rc3 (2014-04-27 19:29:27 -0700)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> are available in the git repository at:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/baohua/linux.git
>>> >> >> tags/sirf-soc-for-3.16
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> for you to fetch changes up to c7cff54d5926e3f419c23eff2ebaf6f5e12da05d:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>   clocksource:sirf: remove the hardcode for the clk of timers
>>> >> >> (2014-05-12 21:43:49 +0800)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> >> ARM: sirf: machine update for 3.16
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> most of them fix some minor checkpatch issues according to key customers'
>>> >> >> requirement. And this patchset also cleanups the clk of clocksource: move
>>> >> >> to get clk by dts properity.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Merged into next/cleanup. Thanks.
>>> >>
>>> >> Olof,
>>> >> i noticed today Daniel Lezcano applied two more clocksource patches
>>> >> into his tree for 3.16 after i re-built the sirf-soc-for-3.16 tag. so
>>> >> for this pull, there are only two left.
>>> >>
>>> >> Bin Shi (2):
>>> >>        clocksource: prima2: fix some minor checkpatch issues
>>> >>
>>> >> Xianglong Du (1):
>>> >>        ARM: prima2: rstc: fix some minor checkpatch issues
>>> >>
>>> >> so i did a force push for tags/sirf-soc-for-3.16 again just now
>>> >> including only these two.
>>> >>
>>> >> very sorry for that!
>>> >
>>> > Don't do this. If you need to add a patch to a branch, then you send us
>>> > a revised pull request with the new patch on top. Also, don't just send a reply
>>> > with "oh, I added some code". It makes it hard to use the diffstat to tell
>>> > whether what I pulled from you was what was supposed to be there and nothing
>>> > more (or less).
>>>
>>> Olof, i actually wanted to drop two patches in the patchset instead of
>>> adding more as the dropped patches have been applied in clocksource.
>>>
>>> i don't know whether REVISED PULL REQUEST can fix it or not?
>>
>> If you dropped patches then there's no good way of amending in a new pull
>> request, no.
>>
>> Are these patches bad? If so, we can revert them. If they need fixups because
>> of problems then we can take those as bugfixes on top. Let me know and I can do
>> either -- but I can't really drop the branch now since it will require me to
>> rebuild a big part of our tree.
>>
>> So, I'll be happy to revert a couple of patches if needed, or take fixes on
>> top.
>
> Olof, you don't need to do anything as Daniel has reverted them in his
> clocksource tree according to my request, i CCed you in another email,
> it seems you missed the mail :-)

Since Daniel has not sent pull-request for these clocksource patches,
he rebased his tree and dropped these two patches which has been in
arm-soc tree according to my requirement to avoid double-commit in two
trees.

> -barry

-barry