mbox

[GIT,PULL] i.MX fixes for -rc

Message ID 20120704075116.GA29310@pengutronix.de
State New
Headers show

Pull-request

git://git.pengutronix.de/git/imx/linux-2.6.git tags/v3.5-imx-fixes

Message

Sascha Hauer July 4, 2012, 7:51 a.m. UTC
Hi Arnd, Olof,

Please pull the following i.MX fixes for -rc

Thanks
 Sascha


The following changes since commit 6887a4131da3adaab011613776d865f4bcfb5678:

  Linux 3.5-rc5 (2012-06-30 16:08:57 -0700)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://git.pengutronix.de/git/imx/linux-2.6.git tags/v3.5-imx-fixes

for you to fetch changes up to c520c921eacdced7e2095ba6cbbb9921906c7b67:

  ARM: imx: assert SCC gate stays enabled (2012-07-04 09:38:29 +0200)

----------------------------------------------------------------
ARM i.MX fixes for v3.5-rc5

----------------------------------------------------------------
Fabio Estevam (1):
      ARM: imx27_visstrim_m10: Do not include <asm/system.h>

Uwe Kleine-König (1):
      ARM: imx: assert SCC gate stays enabled

 arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx35.c               |    9 ++++++++-
 arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx27_visstrim_m10.c |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Arnd Bergmann July 4, 2012, 11:49 a.m. UTC | #1
On Wednesday 04 July 2012, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> Hi Arnd, Olof,
> 
> Please pull the following i.MX fixes for -rc
> 

Thanks, pulled into the fixes branch. I plan to send out fixes tomorrow
to Linus.


> Uwe Kleine-König (1):
>       ARM: imx: assert SCC gate stays enabled

Is this something that should have been marked for stable, or was
it just recently introduced? The description suggests the former.

	Arnd
Sascha Hauer July 4, 2012, 12:05 p.m. UTC | #2
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 11:49:22AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 July 2012, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > Hi Arnd, Olof,
> > 
> > Please pull the following i.MX fixes for -rc
> > 
> 
> Thanks, pulled into the fixes branch. I plan to send out fixes tomorrow
> to Linus.
> 
> 
> > Uwe Kleine-König (1):
> >       ARM: imx: assert SCC gate stays enabled
> 
> Is this something that should have been marked for stable, or was
> it just recently introduced? The description suggests the former.

The bug was introduced in the last merge window, so not suitable for
stable.

Sascha
Arnd Bergmann July 4, 2012, 12:23 p.m. UTC | #3
On Wednesday 04 July 2012, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > Is this something that should have been marked for stable, or was
> > it just recently introduced? The description suggests the former.
> 
> The bug was introduced in the last merge window, so not suitable for
> stable.

Ok, thanks for the confirmation.

	Arnd