Hi Kevin, On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 20:40:28 -0700 Kevin Hilman <khil...@baylibre.com> wrote: > > Not forgotten, but merged through Philip's reset tree, which I thought > was already in linux-next. Sorry about that.
It may well be, but we dislike implicit dependencies between trees ... it makes the merge order matter :-( What you should have is a common non-rebasing branch that both trees merge. It also means that your for-next branch, on its own, will get this build failure as well ... -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
