On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 12:07 -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 06:47:35PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 18:13 +1300, Tony Prisk wrote: > > > On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 18:09 +1300, Tony Prisk wrote: > > > > This patch moves arch-vt8500/timer.c into drivers/clocksource and > > > > updates the necessary Kconfig/Makefile options. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tony Prisk <li...@prisktech.co.nz> > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm/mach-vt8500/Kconfig | 1 + > > > > arch/arm/mach-vt8500/Makefile | 2 +- > > > > arch/arm/mach-vt8500/common.h | 1 - > > > > arch/arm/mach-vt8500/timer.c | 184 > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > arch/arm/mach-vt8500/vt8500.c | 1 + > > > > drivers/clocksource/Kconfig | 3 + > > > > drivers/clocksource/Makefile | 1 + > > > > drivers/clocksource/vt8500_timer.c | 184 > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > include/linux/vt8500_timer.h | 22 +++++ > > > > 9 files changed, 213 insertions(+), 186 deletions(-) > > > > delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-vt8500/timer.c > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/clocksource/vt8500_timer.c > > > > create mode 100644 include/linux/vt8500_timer.h > > > > > > Darn.. forgot the -m again. I'll await your feedback regarding the > > > basing of the patch first (and any other feedback), then I'll redo it > > > with the correct stats. > > > > > > Regards > > > Tony P > > > > Oh grr.. forget this completely. It doesn't take into account the > > patches I already sent for WM8850. > > > > I guess it needs to be based on timer/cleanup + vt8500/wm8x50. > > > > Need a little advise on how to handle this one please :) > > The normal way to handle these kind of dependencies is to base them on merges > of the needed branches. Based on the later email, you only seem to need > timer/cleanup, but if you would have needed the other one, then you'd merge > that on top of timer/cleanup, and then add your patches. > > Of course, ideally you would do the cleanup, then add the wm8x50 features, > but in reality work doesn't always pan out that way, so you end up with > cleanups that depend on including new features in the same (sweeping) > cleanup since they have already been merged. That's when things sometimes > get hairy, and we need to start a second cleanup branch that's "after" > the feature branch in the sequence of topics. But it should be rare, > and in your case it seems like it wasn't needed. > > > -Olof >
Just to clarify what I did (and to make sure it was as you understood it): #1) I wrote the patch on top of timer/cleanup. This is the branch the patch was written for. #2) I then pulled timer/cleanup and merged vt8500/wm8x50 on top, then reapplied the patch from #1 - it applied cleanly. What I have just realised is that you might?? get a conflict when you merge vt8500/wm8x50 on top of wherever this patch ends up due to the few lines at the top of arch-vt8500/Kconfig having changed (the addition of SELECT VT8500_TIMER). This should be trivial to fix (I assume). Regards Tony P -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/