Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: add board-id/msm-id for MSM8956, SDM636 and SM4250

[Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>]

On 2023-01-10 22:30:00, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 05:45:49PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 14/12/2022 16:29, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > > On 2022-12-14 16:06:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > >> Allow qcom,board-id and qcom,msm-id leagcy properties on these older
> > >> platforms: MSM8956, SDM636 and SM4250.  Also mention more OnePlus
> > >> devices using modified qcom,board-id field.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
> > > 
> > >> ---
> > >>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 5 +++++
> > >>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > >> index d45e2129fce3..cfb7f5caf606 100644
> > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > >> @@ -925,15 +925,18 @@ allOf:
> > >>                - qcom,apq8026
> > >>                - qcom,apq8094
> > >>                - qcom,apq8096
> > >> +              - qcom,msm8956
> > > 
> > > I am certain this (and msm8976) were added in [1] but it somehow got
> > > lost when that was merged as 05c0c38dc752 ("dt-bindings: arm: qcom:
> > > Document msm8956 and msm8976 SoC and devices")?
> > > 
> > > Should we also add qcom,msm8976 or only when a user for that board is
> > > added?
> > 
> > Bjorn,
> > You need to fix your scripts. It's not the first time when applied patch
> > is changed and its pieces are gone.
> > 
> 
> I don't have any script that automagically solves merge conflicts, so if
> you prefer to avoid the occasional mistake I can start reject your
> patches as soon as they don't apply 100% cleanly.

Is this manual conflict resolution by you?  Git would/should only make
it disappear if it thinks that (part of) the patch has already been
applied, though I don't think those lines were added with the exact same
indentation elsewhere in the file.

There's also a mode that makes git reject the patch if the context (and
line numbers?) doesn't match up exactly, but that may cause more harm
than good.

- Marijn