Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the m68k tree
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date: 2018-08-02 07:17:32
Also in:
linux-next, lkml
Hi Stephen, On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:42 AM Stephen Rothwell [off-list ref] wrote:
[forgot the conflict resolution ...] On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 09:27:20 +1000 Stephen Rothwell [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: arch/m68k/mac/misc.c between commit: 5b9bfb8ec467 ("m68k: mac: Use time64_t in RTC handling") from the m68k tree and commit: ebd722275f9c ("macintosh/via-pmu: Replace via-pmu68k driver with via-pmu driver") from the powerpc tree. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.
Ah, now I remember Finn said he was going to rebase his series once the time64_t patch has entered my tree...
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- a/arch/m68k/mac/misc.c +++ b/arch/m68k/mac/misc.c@@@ -90,11 -85,11 +90,11 @@@ static void cuda_write_pram(int offset } #endif /* CONFIG_ADB_CUDA */ - #ifdef CONFIG_ADB_PMU68K + #ifdef CONFIG_ADB_PMU -static long pmu_read_time(void) +static time64_t pmu_read_time(void) { struct adb_request req; - long time; + time64_t time; if (pmu_request(&req, NULL, 1, PMU_READ_RTC) < 0) return 0;
Thanks, looks good to me!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds