From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932312AbeE2IRb (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2018 04:17:31 -0400 Received: from mx08-00178001.pphosted.com ([91.207.212.93]:54318 "EHLO mx07-00178001.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932081AbeE2IRI (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2018 04:17:08 -0400 Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree To: Marc Zyngier , Stephen Rothwell , Olof Johansson , Arnd Bergmann , ARM CC: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ludovic Barre , Amelie Delaunay References: <20180529155257.5ae48830@canb.auug.org.au> <1bedc0b7-21f9-1e15-a11c-3de06e81b5ba@st.com> From: Alexandre Torgue Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 10:16:24 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.75.127.48] X-ClientProxiedBy: SFHDAG2NODE1.st.com (10.75.127.4) To SFHDAG3NODE2.st.com (10.75.127.8) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-05-29_02:,, signatures=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Marc On 05/29/2018 09:47 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 29/05/18 08:41, Alexandre Torgue wrote: >> Hi Stephen >> >> On 05/29/2018 07:52 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Today's linux-next merge of the irqchip tree got a conflict in: >>> >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c.dtsi >>> >>> between commit: >>> >>> 3c00436fdb20 ("ARM: dts: stm32: add USBPHYC support to stm32mp157c") >>> >>> from the arm-soc tree and commit: >>> >>> 5f0e9d2557d7 ("ARM: dts: stm32: Add exti support for stm32mp157c") >>> >>> from the irqchip 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. >>> >> >> Thanks for the fix (I will reorder nodes in a future patch). My opinion >> is that all STM32 DT patches should come through my STM32 tree. It is my >> role to fix this kind of conflicts. I thought it was a common rule >> (driver patches go to sub-system maintainer tree and DT to the Machine >> maintainer). For incoming next-series which contain DT+driver patches I >> will indicate clearly that I take DT patch. I'm right ? > Happy to oblige. Can you make sure you sync up with Ludovic and define > what you want to do? Sorry I don't understand your reply. I just say that for series containing DT patches + drivers patches, to my point of view it is more safe that driver patches are taken by sub-system maintainer (you in this case) and that I take DT patches in my tree. > > In the meantime, I'm dropping the series altogether. > Why? We could keep it as Stephen fixed the merge issue. > Thanks, > > M. >