Message ID | 20231211145056.23fbfd7d@canb.auug.org.au |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers |
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org> Delivered-To: ouuuleilei@gmail.com Received: by 2002:a59:bcd1:0:b0:403:3b70:6f57 with SMTP id r17csp6818494vqy; Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:55:00 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE56gbuXm4YB9VzZrxw5MztsC3aw44kSch5/iZkFptmseBsio3dzioYPPM4auUCavppv4S+ X-Received: by 2002:aca:230d:0:b0:3b9:ed80:37 with SMTP id e13-20020aca230d000000b003b9ed800037mr4487494oie.108.1702266900467; Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:55:00 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1702266900; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=oDFjL2BR+MtQxPg+5eH+AqFNwoo25id2aVbQ/KnIPkDTLODOoZl+I7u87f6Q2MKA/p c8RtiFPb5bTIpCPm3vt0hb5u+Kml/gK1UcSJyAMfKTIWaBoQz0Z89DwjfYPZpKo9wLr3 Mn3XyiBIVCC5aBgjad4FvT6o2ThrtJFaygB8kzJ6VTqM6Tjn08Eb2YeWjQbcQtrLkSp8 aXkOYhRUQbc4pMTZQV8EE/VlNMx0EGHHAKsnp/CW9I1bpkvOmP+sVi51fqqsfcL+R8gh Ay8WPIrln8UwsbEvRqWVP7KK1A0wTXIjnlXVdQ5Z52iKnau9sVkCkOl8TgCDWU0CSpxn gg/A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:mime-version:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :dkim-signature; bh=FGkn7wAFqtTBrFRe5RSB0rgYUlfdkjXPy2LBmnrawZI=; fh=0QeICJ/8mzxZ3RoT8QgC3O8shJ7BoyNU3sTPB7EKVVQ=; b=XqglNPz3aDG0iOZJmYfMnCFH0OCgbZnNmqOPsJtGwp5SXUOUfJSgF/FzAknJl8XNb9 3lighnfbuNfs6XjJrZ/s0m/iutNp8o3uytRGGoMCuXXujITFdrrByiZd7xgOaaytICjE vtCy3v9dbxQrwjcAiWeZI76WaEc6zTykZ+WZ1wI5phGS7LK4HpwGRtQomSnZU8y6R1AE SYiZuLlq0LtdkfZ9H7AMJ06G8i2GaykzpKLq4G45KJjfogcETboQfASeSZwRgCKtYwST 1oOXx5u8F0gj4Ich0kaGAWNJ2VbgafHDtbxzWSaGsgUmLwY8nzwezYJdbIUASGl/Pi/6 DbPg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@canb.auug.org.au header.s=201702 header.b=GXNkDSep; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=canb.auug.org.au Received: from groat.vger.email (groat.vger.email. [23.128.96.35]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u6-20020a056a00098600b006cecb9d4cd3si5363735pfg.298.2023.12.10.19.54.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:55:00 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@canb.auug.org.au header.s=201702 header.b=GXNkDSep; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=canb.auug.org.au Received: from out1.vger.email (depot.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::3:0]) by groat.vger.email (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0DC6806990F; Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:54:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.11 at groat.vger.email Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229757AbjLKDu6 (ORCPT <rfc822;dexuan.linux@gmail.com> + 99 others); Sun, 10 Dec 2023 22:50:58 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58226 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229448AbjLKDu5 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>); Sun, 10 Dec 2023 22:50:57 -0500 Received: from gandalf.ozlabs.org (mail.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2404:9400:2221:ea00::3]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC940E7; Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:51:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=canb.auug.org.au; s=201702; t=1702266659; bh=FGkn7wAFqtTBrFRe5RSB0rgYUlfdkjXPy2LBmnrawZI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:From; b=GXNkDSeppFQTc7iPvGpIjpBqMLxFrzgAPd5vBGBg5iPFOKDMwDYWLz7BMYXD0eKCZ o9UXs9k0UwyQuVo2FzGZDl1KGtsY8z68gNblrFQQ9AsTQ8aHjh6oEhC8IKUFlXKnoK 3dPv0HwN8eTXsxBcattc6SzRcDnF19AHgucxtyrlDqmjpzsIkMZQSmItkFjDj5Y2nj 2h7P2IZTg/tJSlQkeYmAFrPdGDWmQX9aVuJr/oZnMcDGYwOa3ZApJxKe94vcHO8wjs 98nPOy1ioQfok4Bqk0l/I8sI9hCGxswY2DRLEU25C4OH8C35WWLdM1KSGAw2lYcj5+ is1mMtbPZHJCg== Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4SpSTG6kcxz4x2V; Mon, 11 Dec 2023 14:50:58 +1100 (AEDT) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 14:50:56 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org> Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl-intel tree with the gpio-brgl tree Message-ID: <20231211145056.23fbfd7d@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/FU3efTF+ydPNoOnYUznk4ry"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on groat.vger.email Precedence: bulk List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org> X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (groat.vger.email [0.0.0.0]); Sun, 10 Dec 2023 19:54:54 -0800 (PST) X-getmail-retrieved-from-mailbox: INBOX X-GMAIL-THRID: 1784956217112560241 X-GMAIL-MSGID: 1784956217112560241 |
Series |
linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl-intel tree with the gpio-brgl tree
|
|
Commit Message
Stephen Rothwell
Dec. 11, 2023, 3:50 a.m. UTC
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl-intel tree got a conflict in: drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c between commit: c73505c8a001 ("pinctrl: baytrail: use gpiochip_dup_line_label()") from the gpio-brgl tree and commit: 6191e49de389 ("pinctrl: baytrail: Simplify code with cleanup helpers") from the pinctrl-intel 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.
Comments
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 04:51, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl-intel tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c > > between commit: > > c73505c8a001 ("pinctrl: baytrail: use gpiochip_dup_line_label()") > > from the gpio-brgl tree and commit: > > 6191e49de389 ("pinctrl: baytrail: Simplify code with cleanup helpers") > > from the pinctrl-intel 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. > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell > > diff --cc drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c > index 3c8c02043481,9b76819e606a..000000000000 > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c > @@@ -1173,7 -1136,7 +1136,6 @@@ static void byt_gpio_dbg_show(struct se > void __iomem *conf_reg, *val_reg; > const char *pull_str = NULL; > const char *pull = NULL; > - unsigned long flags; > - const char *label; > unsigned int pin; > > pin = vg->soc->pins[i].number; Andy, please pull the following into your baytrail tree: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231208083650.25015-1-brgl@bgdev.pl/ Bart
+Cc: Linus W. On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 09:15:30AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 04:51, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl-intel tree got a conflict in: > > > > drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c > > > > between commit: > > > > c73505c8a001 ("pinctrl: baytrail: use gpiochip_dup_line_label()") > > > > from the gpio-brgl tree and commit: > > > > 6191e49de389 ("pinctrl: baytrail: Simplify code with cleanup helpers") > > > > from the pinctrl-intel tree. ... > Andy, please pull the following into your baytrail tree: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231208083650.25015-1-brgl@bgdev.pl/ I can do it, but why? Conflicts is a normal practice during kernel development. And I believe this particular one will be solved by Linus W. Stephen, resolution looks correct to me, thank you.
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 14:40, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > +Cc: Linus W. > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 09:15:30AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 04:51, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl-intel tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c > > > > > > between commit: > > > > > > c73505c8a001 ("pinctrl: baytrail: use gpiochip_dup_line_label()") > > > > > > from the gpio-brgl tree and commit: > > > > > > 6191e49de389 ("pinctrl: baytrail: Simplify code with cleanup helpers") > > > > > > from the pinctrl-intel tree. > > ... > > > Andy, please pull the following into your baytrail tree: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231208083650.25015-1-brgl@bgdev.pl/ > > I can do it, but why? > You were the one who asked me to put these commits into an immutable branch in the first place to avoid conflicts with the baytrail branch. :) Bartosz > Conflicts is a normal practice during kernel development. And I believe this > particular one will be solved by Linus W. > > Stephen, resolution looks correct to me, thank you. > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > >
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 14:40, Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 09:15:30AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 04:51, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl-intel tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > > > drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c > > > > > > > > between commit: > > > > > > > > c73505c8a001 ("pinctrl: baytrail: use gpiochip_dup_line_label()") > > > > > > > > from the gpio-brgl tree and commit: > > > > > > > > 6191e49de389 ("pinctrl: baytrail: Simplify code with cleanup helpers") > > > > > > > > from the pinctrl-intel tree. ... > > > Andy, please pull the following into your baytrail tree: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231208083650.25015-1-brgl@bgdev.pl/ > > > > I can do it, but why? > > You were the one who asked me to put these commits into an immutable > branch in the first place to avoid conflicts with the baytrail branch. > :) True with the caveat like (citing by memory): "I see no conflicts with the code that needs this PR to be pulled, but just in case." So, thank you for PR, but there is nothing pending in my tree that requires this PR to be pulled. So, when I send the PR to Linus W. (presumably end of this week) it will be solved on his level, I believe. > > Conflicts is a normal practice during kernel development. And I believe this > > particular one will be solved by Linus W. > > > > Stephen, resolution looks correct to me, thank you.
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 04:48:36PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 14:40, Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 09:15:30AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 04:51, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl-intel tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > > > > > drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c > > > > > > > > > > between commit: > > > > > > > > > > c73505c8a001 ("pinctrl: baytrail: use gpiochip_dup_line_label()") > > > > > > > > > > from the gpio-brgl tree and commit: > > > > > > > > > > 6191e49de389 ("pinctrl: baytrail: Simplify code with cleanup helpers") > > > > > > > > > > from the pinctrl-intel tree. ... > > > > Andy, please pull the following into your baytrail tree: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231208083650.25015-1-brgl@bgdev.pl/ > > > > > > I can do it, but why? > > > > You were the one who asked me to put these commits into an immutable > > branch in the first place to avoid conflicts with the baytrail branch. > > :) > > True with the caveat like (citing by memory): "I see no conflicts with > the code that needs this PR to be pulled, but just in case." > > So, thank you for PR, but there is nothing pending in my tree that requires > this PR to be pulled. > > So, when I send the PR to Linus W. (presumably end of this week) it will be > solved on his level, I believe. Btw, Torvalds states that 1) conflicts are okay and even good to have (shows that you don't sneak the last-minute modified code into the PR) and 2) the any merge should be justified (like real dependency), the conflict is not a dependency. Maybe that's what was unclear when I asked you for PR... > > > Conflicts is a normal practice during kernel development. And I believe this > > > particular one will be solved by Linus W. > > > > > > Stephen, resolution looks correct to me, thank you.
diff --cc drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c index 3c8c02043481,9b76819e606a..000000000000 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c