From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from gandalf.ozlabs.org (gandalf.ozlabs.org [150.107.74.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F26310E4; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 01:06:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=150.107.74.76 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707181609; cv=none; b=SxBSmwNYv6DwRBefo8ebRzm01AfKTeirnrqy21IA0zcAZp5y9GChrirhwMoAr+sl+9xMFglP5AeVc5XPr4TlRtoULfKmRkvsDjIFY5rkLj3kq14fh+uB+2aTj5WTlwRjujetZg/e8GfUOodcT+FJAK2DKHccJw8whiypI9Apuh4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707181609; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8brotDgIv/mOm2mHmMZq1YeN7q4v6JJ4y6F71FYbX64=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=MrdiQXnHib/4XmseP+fOhNvy5hLy38dyQNKu8klsX3Imc5w/LUcefRho/GIRW21M4JV8lUwcFy/t/1F96XoaNjA13IaqmtV4muoPOs5gHWDRWO7b40dCTxeR86/5ENTdVP72p6mIFmcqbxkM7um/FNEDf0SDoVk6DiYRla6xz2w= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=canb.auug.org.au; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=canb.auug.org.au; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=canb.auug.org.au header.i=@canb.auug.org.au header.b=D45K9hca; arc=none smtp.client-ip=150.107.74.76 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=canb.auug.org.au Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=canb.auug.org.au Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=canb.auug.org.au header.i=@canb.auug.org.au header.b="D45K9hca" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=canb.auug.org.au; s=201702; t=1707181605; bh=2vDOcQqrXnD/DT/s1m9g+ZZ/YWdvacfHhw9HRCRbVXI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=D45K9hcao5cQV0oSsPK8wHRiIIN1VEH1Vy6r1G22jOBIiFG8j14AeQLoRPnaMagYc 0SMrxahnPfIBmZXMjGv5ywu33YKjAFAiKSaz5heHi0cn6uO3W4aLBdjcKyqVPkAXdF 2iWOpDu+Go+rGX7CnsIQwlFaiuG8A7Sw9pTqjaTZE9cOsU4vBhrfzaPtdmD/iL06K+ z0+oHHjdOgLhov4jO1GQnuvhToeM4hNYs1+ANrJ5WaM31cJnzVCsSeMgDYkhjraP6w ve7vBAgjS9lhNPpAAUYvWDCHzmcu7lO15cwvAQECUVK5mWwAziIt+jaII+LUnKOxpk QNI4XQxnIsXpw== 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 4TTQ7S3np1z4wxx; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 12:06:44 +1100 (AEDT) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 12:06:43 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Daniel Vetter , Intel Graphics , DRI Cc: Dario Binacchi , Inki Dae , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List , Michael Trimarchi , Michael Walle , Robert Foss Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-misc tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20240206120643.1d30764c@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20240206115956.4570e9b1@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20240206115956.4570e9b1@canb.auug.org.au> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/R5MrDFgjJgkcfwl1oGYogXX"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 --Sig_/R5MrDFgjJgkcfwl1oGYogXX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 11:59:56 +1100 Stephen Rothwell w= rote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the drm-misc tree got a conflict in: >=20 > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c >=20 > between commit: >=20 > ff3d5d04db07 ("drm: bridge: samsung-dsim: Don't use FORCE_STOP_STATE") >=20 > from Linus' tree and commit: >=20 > b2fe2292624a ("drm: bridge: samsung-dsim: enter display mode in the ena= ble() callback") >=20 > from the drm-misc tree. >=20 > I fixed it up (see below, please check) 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. I changed my mind and just used the latter version of this file. --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell --Sig_/R5MrDFgjJgkcfwl1oGYogXX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEENIC96giZ81tWdLgKAVBC80lX0GwFAmXBhiMACgkQAVBC80lX 0GxeKAgAkwQiFzWc9h4CfzDkViFqu8H/3j8jQCOL2MrI0BRFd//8tfIgFyEx7a3Y NM6ij5nZP/7LrEELmOe7J/L8xBjhJel34x+aoKXlRFVtgUpauNQLYf8f4vL7CE1F hP09q3GOWEMo9q+FyhmlZBBE7NDYFXtSPYm2pedIKe0VxrJtnMREtnn4nZ+vsaQn wxdaWppYiN7eSLHc8dKE85tjr3sn6ILBDMLoRWgDX9EENec2Tnhc+HD7+cmt/OhF yUiyenHVxTZwjeyUd0SPgT0jZHtklj5tRvO2/kT2xp3NC7yAgptFunRdtVBGbMoz tSZeRFmfZOsf1V45x4vkJrSD+fgeCg== =L2LP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/R5MrDFgjJgkcfwl1oGYogXX--