linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 29 May 2018 09:41:28 +0200
From:   Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
CC:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@...com>,
        Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc
 tree

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 ?

Regards
Alex