On Fri, 2012-08-24 at 05:40 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Thursday 23 August 2012, Tony Prisk wrote:

quoted

I was about to say that if Mike has any issues with the driver that I
can fix the patch conflict at the same time, but I just realised that
its more work than I originally thought :)

I was going to move the arch-vt8500 part of the clocks patch back into
the clocks patch - but that will just move the issue from arm-soc to
clocks because Mike's branch won't have the arch-vt8500 patch so the
patch will fail.

But that's ok, because without the arch-v8500 part, nothing uses
the vt8500-clock driver, so nothing breaks. You can introduce broken
code in the meantime as long as it's impossible to enable and it will
work afterwards.

	Arnd

You lost me a little bit there :)
If it stays as is now, the arch-vt8500 patch will introduce an
unresolved symbol.
If I move the clock code from the arch-vt8500 patch to the clock patch,
then the clock patch won't apply because it needs the arch-vt8500 patch
first and Mike won't have that patch, but it would be fine if both
patches went in via your tree.

Or are you saying to apply the clock patch as is before the arch-vt8500
patch?

Tony P