From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EBB2C04EB8 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 05:08:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0CF52084E for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 05:07:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="HigsrH5D" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D0CF52084E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726386AbeLLFH6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Dec 2018 00:07:58 -0500 Received: from fllv0016.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.142]:40060 "EHLO fllv0016.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726220AbeLLFH6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Dec 2018 00:07:58 -0500 Received: from fllv0034.itg.ti.com ([10.64.40.246]) by fllv0016.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id wBC57p1u018194; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 23:07:51 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1544591271; bh=8VqQmW7LMe9h3m+fFG2rMJ8Wv5G1lGyK5dE7FQgkq6E=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=HigsrH5D8nqUnE5mVwLoRRVSmBST8DRfZAF0+pVD8XB9xlQNbPEw5ihjInoruBhMC owiFHzfQ3IlfJACyod7ZqXdWk9XUzpLUBEPMbZAIlFb01rY+MK5TEoh0tnoOqH+1G+ 9L3mkQGbFIZsQZ7s7CJ2vvb8yfYaDzobYRMr0TZY= Received: from DLEE106.ent.ti.com (dlee106.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.36]) by fllv0034.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id wBC57pnr099649 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 11 Dec 2018 23:07:51 -0600 Received: from DLEE111.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.22) by DLEE106.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 23:07:50 -0600 Received: from dflp32.itg.ti.com (10.64.6.15) by DLEE111.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1591.10 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 23:07:50 -0600 Received: from [172.24.190.233] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by dflp32.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id wBC57mVs017465; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 23:07:49 -0600 Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the phy-next tree with Linus' tree To: Stephen Rothwell CC: Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Douglas Anderson , Evan Green References: <20181212151647.71a5befe@canb.auug.org.au> From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:37:37 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181212151647.71a5befe@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On 12/12/18 9:46 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the phy-next tree got a conflict in: > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom-qmp-phy.txt > > between commit: > > 7243ec72b902 ("dt-bindings: phy-qcom-qmp: Fix several mistakes from prior commits") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > 91fdc9b127c9 ("dt-bindings: phy-qcom-qmp: Fix register underspecification") > > from the phy-next tree. > > I fixed it up (I just used the latter veriosn of the conflicting line) > 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've rebased by 'next' branch on top of my 'fixes' branch to avoid this conflict. Thanks Kishon >