Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the clk tree with Linus' tree

From: James Hogan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:09:52 +0100

On 27/08/13 10:03, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the clk tree got a conflict in
> drivers/clk/zynq/clkc.c between commits 252957cc3a2d ("clk/zynq/clkc: Add
> dedicated spinlock for the SWDT") and 765b7d4c4cb3
> ("clk/zynq/clkc: Add CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT flag to ethernet muxes") from
> Linus' tree and commit 819c1de344c5 ("clk: add CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT
> flag") from the clk tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below and in a couple of places I chose
> CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT over CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, which may, of course,
> be wrong) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).

The case you mentioned looks correct to me.

I can't see todays -next yet, but if by "choose CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT
over CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT" you mean one branch adds CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
clk-next adds CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT, and the resolution ends up with
only CLK_SET_RATE_NOREPARENT then that sounds wrong, as the two flags
are orthogonal.

Thanks
James